(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Self-confrontation via Closed Circuit Television in Teacher Training: Results, Implications and Recommendations"

special-topic 
bulletin from 



DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL AND 
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH 

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 
MALMO, SWEDEN 







didakometry 






Bierschenk, B.: 

SELF-CONFRONTATION VIA CLOSED-CIRCUIT 
TELEVISION IN TEACHER TRAINING: RESULTS, 
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



No. 37 



September 1972 






SELF -CONFRONTATION VIA CLOSED -CIRCUIT TELEVISION IN 
TEACHER TRAINING: RESULTS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMEN- 
DATIONS 



Brief description of an experiment: its design, results and implications, 
together with some recommendations 



Bernhard Bierschenk 



An experimental study was carried out at the Malmo School of Education 
in 1969 and 1970 for the purpose of studying the effects on the self -assess- 
ment of student teachers of, firstly, externally mediated self -confronta- 
tion processes (via closed-circuit television and video-recording), and 
secondly, dyadic confrontation processes (in the form of traditional tuto- 
ring). Detailed reports on the background, design and result of the ex- 
periment have been presented in Swedish. The present report gives a 
brief description of the design, the results, and some implications of the 
separate analyses. On the basis of the experimental results, general re- 
commendations are given for continued research on CCTV techniques. 
Finally, an outline \s given of come important tasks for analysis, for 
which data have already been collected. 



- 2 



CONTENTS 



Page 



I, 
2. 



6. 
7. 



PROBLEMS 

THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF THE STUDY 

2. 1 Description of factors H, T, and U 

2. 2 Data from attitude questionnaires 

2.3 Various sub-studies 

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION SCHEDULE F III: 
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 

ANALYSES OF RESULTS 



4.1 



A 7. 



Analysis of levels 

4. 1 . 1 Step I : Patterns in the F tests 

4. 1 . 2 Step 2: Precision and power in the F testi 

4.1.3 Step 3: Post-hoc comparisons 

4.1.4 Implications of ANOVA results 
Analysis of structure 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 

5. 1 General recommendations 

5. 2 Continued tasks of analysis 

REFERENCES 

APPENDICES 

7. 1 Appendix 1. The assessment and evaluation 

schedule F III 

7. 2 Appendix 2. Assessments of the reliability of 

perception, and evaluation of the 
student teachers and educational 
experts. 

7. 3 Appendix 3. Self -assessments and assessments 

by educational experts. 

Mean values and standard devia- 
tions for the variables included in 
the assessment and evaluation 
schedule F III 

7.4 Appendix 4 Canonical correlations and co- 

efficients for the variable domains 
1 + 6. 



3 

6 

7 

9 
12 

14 

20 

21 
21 

24 
25 
30 

42 

45 

45 
47 

50 



1. PROBLEMS 



One of the goals of Swedish, teacher training in pedagogics according to the 
directives of the Swedish National Board of Education (SO, Klasslararut- 
bildningen, studieplaner , I960, a. 393) is 

"to combine with other aspects of the training in furthering the personal 
development and self-knowledge of the aspirant teachers and providing 
them with a vocational training which, given their individual qualities, 
will equip them for undertaking the responsibility of educating and teaching 
the grades for which they are being trained 11 . 

It has long been the policy within teacher training to let the student 
teachers discover for themselves, during their period of supervised 
teaching practice, the way in which their own behavior influences the cC 
teaching process. A well-known phenomenon within the psychology of per- 
ception is that the individual's structure of perception and evaluation leads 
to interpretations of objects and situations that are specific for that indi- 
vidual. One of the aims of the traditional tutorial system is to help the 
student teachers find out about themselves and about the relationships 
that exist between the student teacher and his pupils. But the difficulties 
experienced by both the tutor and the student teacher in recalling " exactly '' 
what happened in the practice teaching situation obstruct the fulfillment of 
this aim. 

In recent years, externally mediated self -confrontation by means of 
closed- curcuit television and video-recording (CCTV/VR) has become a 
popular technique of confrontation. A large number of reports and articles'^ 
extremely varied in quality, have been published in many different journals. 
In addition, a number of mimeographed doctoral theses are available. 
Special bibliographies, two in English and one in German, on "Television 
as a technical aid in education and in educational and psychological research 
have been published by Bierschenk (1969, 1971 b, 1971 c). A third report 
including all three, with an introduction in Swedish, appeared in Bier- 
schenk (1971 d). A survey of literature on educational and psychological 
research into the techniques of audiovisual self-confrontation is given in 
Bierschenk (1972 f, Ch. 3). 

The reactions of the teacher when the desired teaching behavior has 
been specified and accepted by him have been described and analysed in 
numerous studies. In contrast, the aim of the present study is to investi- 
gate the teacher's reactions when no specific norms have been externally 
and explicitly predetermined. 



Like the actual teaching situations, the behavior of teachers and 
students can and has been studied in many different ways. Moreover, it 
has become increasingly obvious during the past few years that self-know- 
ledge and self -under standing require quite different research methods 
than the study of curricula, material -method systems and teaching tasks. 

Those working in educational-psychological research have long lacked 
the means of placing the complex process of teaching under experimental 
control. The technique of micro-lessons (a technique of reduction) has 
proved to be a very useful research method. The whole structure of micro- 
-lessons can be manipulated in such a way that different problems can be 
answered by means of experimental designs. In addition, the CCTV system 
and the video-recorder make possible new approaches in research metho- 
dology for the study of interaction processes. 

The main purpose of this study, "Celf- confrontation via closed-circuit 
television 1 ', has been to study the reactions of student teachers placed 
under various experimental conditions when confronted with their own 
teaching performances, which have been registered by means of closed- 
- circuit television and video -recording. An additional aim has been to 
study the "degree of objectivity" of the perceptions and evaluations of the 
student teachers, by examining their selection of information from the 
video-recorded teaching situations. The studies of effect concerned 
different forms of feedback, such as dyadic confrontations in the form of 
traditional tutorship and externally mediated self -confrontation processes 
via CCTV/VR. 

To summarize, the goals have been to: 

1. study systematically and under controlled conditions the way in which 
the student teacher perceives and evaluates the behavior of himself 
and his pupils in the context of micro-lessons. 

As a result of the treatment of this problem, the individual's 
"self- concept" and "life -space cognition" have come to occupy a 
central position in the study. 

2. examine systematically the dyadic confrontation process in a tutoring 
situation. 

Since tutoring plays such a central role in teacher training, a 
detailed analysis of the pattern of "face-to-face" comrnunication ought 
to be of considerable importance for educational research. 

3. gain experience in the use of closed-circuit television, video-recorders 
and micro-lesson techniques as aids in research and as teaching 
methods. 



5 - 






The advantages of CCTV/VR and micro-lessons have been 
pointed out in various contexts and need not be further emphasized 
here. One disadvantage of CCTV, video-recording and micro-lesson 
techniques is that editing at certain stages can make the protocol 
material liable to subjectivity. Lighting and sound-recording can 
also cause difficulties. 

For a more detailed discussion, see Bierschenk, 1972 f, Ch. 2. 



2. THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF THE STUDY 

Studies dealing with possible ways of using CCTV/VR techniques in educa- 
tional psychology often seem to be characterised either by faulty designs 
or by inadequate models for the treatment of data. 

Stickell's (1963, p. 46) investigation showed that of 250 data compari- 
sons concerning "televised and face-to-face instruction", only 6% were 
based on control group designs with "satisfactory control groups, while 
50% were not based on any experimental control. Stickell's examination 
showed (p. 48) that only 10 out of 250 comparisons led to interpretable 
results. Controlled experiments are, however, the "only way of veri- 
fying educational improvements" (Campbell « Stanley, 1963, p. 172). 

The main problem in the present study has been: 

What are the effects of traditional tutoring in the form of dyadic con- 
frontation and/or externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR on 
the self-assessment (perception and evaluation) of student teachers? 

Those participating in this study were 96 female student teachers, 
admitted in the autumn terms of 1967 and 1968 to the School of Education 
in ivialmo for training as teachers in grades 4-6.. They took part in the 
experiment at the beginning of their second term. 

In order to achieve the maximum degree of control over possible 
interpretations of the results of the study, a factorial design was drawn 
up. The different factors of the design are: 



Factor K: 



Traditional tutoring, where 
h. : tutoring 
h • no tutoring 

Self- confrontation mediated externally via CCTV/VR, where 
i : self -confrontation 
t_: no self- confrontation 

Factor U: i/licro-lessons (length 15 min. ), where 



Factor T: 



u, : micro-lesson 1 
u~: micro-lesson 2 



In order to increase the precision of the design, two additional factors 
were included in the original design, i. e. 



Precision factor V: Assessment and evaluation schedule F III 

v. , . . . , v 7 „ statements of which the measuring 
instrument consists. 

Precision factor A: Aspects of the instrument. Each statement contains 

two different aspects, where 
a 1 : perception aspect 
3. : evaluation aspect. 

The Assessment and evaluation schedule F III is given in the Appcndi:-: 
No. 1. 

The whole ANOVA model can be -written as A, U, T, H, I (TH), V, 
where I denote the factor representing the individuals. A summary of the 
experiment s analysis of variance design is presented in Table 1. In 
addition, a brief description is given below of factors II, T, and U (for a 
description of factors I, A, and V, see Bierschenk, 1972 f, Chs. 4 and 
C.2). 

Table 1 . The analysis of variance design of the experiment 



Index 


A 


U 


T 


H 


I 


V 


No. of levels 

Gize of popula- 
tion 


2 
2 


2 

2 


2 

2 


2 

2 


24 

CO 


79 
79 



2. 1 Description of factors H, T, and U 

Factor H: Traditional tutoring in the form of dyadic confrontation was 
arranged so as to be similar to the tutoring student teachers receive 
during their teaching practice. Acting in the same way as during normal 
teaching practice, the tutor observed the student teachers during the 
experiment, i. e. made the notes considered necessary for the subsequent 
tutoring session. 

The tutor was allowed the same length of time for discussing the 
lesson with the subject as is normal in ordinary teaching practice. 

Factor T: Externally mediated self-confrontation via CCTV/VR here 
implies confrontation with one's own behavior in teaching situations which 
are registered via closed-circuit television and video-recording. The 
process involves external confrontation with one's own expressive be- 



havior. These experiences of confrontation could be described as a de - 
-automatization of the usual way of seeing one's self. This Factor T can 
thus be said to involve an external self-distancing in space and time. 
In order to avoid or balance possible sources of error associated 
with technical problems such as camera angle or different methods of 
editing (spatial selection, temporal selection), two cameras were used, 
linked via a mixer, for registration of the behavior of the experimental 
subjects, while the behavior of the pupils was registered via a third static 
camera. To make it possible to examine the facial expressions of the 
subject, a close-up was registered by zooming in every third minute. 
The close-up lasted for 10 seconds. This measure was introduced as a 
result of a preliminary experiment (cf. Bierschcnk, 1972 f, Ch. 2) where 
the student teachers expressed a desire to sec themselves in close-up. A 
more detailed description of the techniques used in the experiment for 
both recording and playback, together with the arrangement of the appa- 
ratus, are given in Bierschcnk, 1972 i, Ch. 6. 

Factor U : Micro-lessons involve three different components, namely 
(I) pupils, (2) theme of the lesson to be taught and (3) length of lesson. 

1. Pupils participating in micro -lessons should be representative for 
the level that the aspirant teacher is going to teach. The pupils (half- 
- classes) that took part in 1969 and 1970 all came from the fourth 
grade of Munkhattcskolan in Malmo and were divided between the 
four experimental groups without regard to ability or social class. 

2. The theme of the lesson to be taught was taken from the subject area 
of biology. Within this area the animals of northern Sweden were 
chosen: lemming, bear, wolf, lynx, reindeer, golden eagle, grouse 
and wolverine. These subjects were chosen on the recommendation 
of lecturers in Methodology as being relatively simple. At this level 
there is no noticeable variation in the technique required either for 
teaching about the different species or for planning the teaching. An 
extra advantage in choosing biology was that all the student teachers 
had access to abundant and very similar concrete illustrative mate- 
rial. 

3. Length of lesson, i. e. the video-recorded teaching time, was limited 
to 1 5 minutes. The student teachers were also allowed an additional 

5 minutes warming-up time to get acquainted with the pupils. The 



short duration (15 min. ) of the lesson forced the student teachers to 
keep to the task at hand, and imposed a natural restriction on too 
wide a variety of teaching activities. 

A survey of the experimental design is presented in Figure 1. The 
factorial design shown in Figure 1 is a more complex form of Campbell's 
and Stanley's design No. 6, "The posttest-Oniy Control Group Design". 
This design checks all the eight sources of error (see Campbell & Stanley, 
1963, p. 17C) that could invalidate the internal validity of the experiment. 
In addition, the experiment must have external validity if we are to make 
generalizations on the basis of the result for the population of student 
teachers in question. 

A detailed discussion of the internal and external validity of the experi- 
ment, together with a description and discussion of some empirical 
results that illuminate certain aspects of the ecological validity of the 
experiment, has been presented in Bierschenk (1972 f, Ch. 11). 

2. 2 Data from attitude questionnaires 

In order to find out to what extent the experiment was felt to be some- 
thing exceptional compared to the usual teaching situation, three attitude 
questionnaires were constructed and administered to (l) the teaching 
staff at the School of Education, (2) the student teachers in the second 
term of their training as teachers in grades 4-6 who did not participate 
in the experiment, and (3) the student teachers in the second term of 
their training as teachers in grades 4-6 who did participate in the experi- 
ment. The answers to the separate questionnaires can be summarized 
as follows: 



Teaching staff at the School of Education in Ivlalmo 

The teacher -trainers consider that: 

1. the experiment described above is "very important" for teacher 
training 

2. the participation of student teachers in such experiments is "very 
important" for teacher training and 

3. the School of Education should in the future "to a very great extent" 
carry on research into the use of closed-circuit television in teacher 
training. 



\ 






Experiment 
Interval 5-10 minutes 1 day 7 days 7 days 1 day 



7 days 7 days 

f 9 



Follow up 1 Follow up 2 

62-76 days 1 day 2-3 days 3 terms 1 day 

h i j k I 



gr. 1 
T + H 



It 



gr. 2 
H 



gr. 3 

T 



gr. 4 

Basic 
group 



It 



It 



It 



ml. 



11 




Dv+VRv 





ml 



V 




ml 



11 



VR 



12 



ml 21 D 21 



ml 



21 



mi 31 VR 31 



ml 31 



mi 



11 



VR. 



13 



'fe 



ml. 



11 




D ,2 + VR 14 



VR, 



15 



ml 



12 



ml 



12 



VR. 



1 6 



ml- 



12 



ml 22 D 2Z 




ml 



22 



VR 



32 



VR 



33 



mt 32 VR 3A 



VR. 



35 



VR 



36 



ml 



31 



ml 



l 31 




ml. 



[ 32 



mi 



■32 



m 



32 



ml 



42 




VR. 



17 



VR, 



8 



mL 



ml. 



12 



VR 



1X 



ml] 



X 



VR 21 VR 2Z VR 2X 



ml 



21 



ml 



22 



ml 



2X 



VR 3? VR 38 VR 3)( 



ml, 



31 



ml 



32 



ml. 



l 3X 



VR 41 VR 42 V **X 



">L 



'41 



ml 42 



ml 4X 



Abbreviations: 

Dn-12: Dyadic confrontation in connection with traditional tutoring, 
experimental group 1 (first index figure) 

D21-22: Dyadic confrontation in connection with traditional tutoring, 
experimental group 2 (first index figure) 

gr: Group 

H: Experimental factor stating influence of traditional tutoring in the 
form of a dyadic confrontation 

It: Initial test (group test) 

Figure 1. The design of the experiment. 



ml: Micro-lesson. The first index figure refers to the experimental group, 
the second index figure to micro-lessons 1 and 2 respectively 

ml: Micro-lesson X is a micro-lesson that has been held by subject II 
during the experiment of spring term 1968 

Pers.test: Personality test: testbattery at end of second term 

T: Experimental factor stating influence of external mediated self- 
confrontation by means of CCTV/VR 

VR: Video-recordings. The first index figure refers the experimental 
group, the second index figure refers to the recording occasion 



VR. 



19 



ml v 



VR. 



110 



ml 



12 



VR n VR^ 



m(. 



21 



ml. 



22 



VR 39 VR 310 



ml. 



31 



ml 



'32 



VR 4 3 VR 44 



ml. 



41 



ml 42 



11 



Despite the fact that the experiment was integrated into the teacher 
training schedule, some members of staff have complained that the 
experiment interfered with the normal course of their work. 

Student teachers who did not participate in the experiment 

The answers received from the student teachers who did not participate 
in the experiment can be summarized in the following way: 

1. This group has a positive attitude to the CCTV experimental activity 
in both 1969 and 1970. 

2. The student teachers wish to see their own lessons, registered via 
CCTV/VR, rather often - a positive attitude to the medium and the 
method concerned.. 

3. The student teachers are very hesitant as to whether they could accept 
losing some of their scheduled training. This reaction is completely 
in line with the current practice at the School of Education. Further- 
more, the student teachers are hardly willing to accept a greater load 
of work. 

4. The risk that the student teachers participating in the first phase of 
the experiment should have lost essential parts of the training was 
judged in 1969 to be minimal, while the student teachers participating 
in the second phase were thought to have lost essential lectures. 

A possible explanation is that the greater difficulties involved in 
integrating phase II of the experiment into the schedule have caused a 
change of attitude among the student teachers. The variation in the num- 
ber of lessons lost was namely greater in 1970 than in 1969. (The student 
teachers of 1970 who participated also considered their absence from 
their training to be more serious than those of 1969 had done. ) 

Student teachers who participated in the experiment 

The answers received from the student teachers who participated in the 
experiment can be summed up as follows: 

1. All student teachers found participation in the experiment enjoyable. 

2. All student teachers considered it to be valuable experience to parti- 
cipate in such experiments during their teacher training. 

3. All student teachers considered that continued research into the use 
of CCTV/VR techniques in teacher training should be carried out on 
a large scale at the School of Education. 



- 12 - 

To summarize, it can be said that the internal validity of this study is 
guaranteed by the factorial design presented above. That the experiment 
should have internal validity is a minimum requirement, without which 
one cannot even start to interpret an experimental study. It has also been 
pointed out that the possibility of generalising the results of the experi- 
ment to the population in question is partly dependent on the ecological 
validity of the experiment. 

In conclusion, the results of the attitude questionnaires show that the 
ecological validity of the experiment is reasonably good. The experiment 
has not been felt to interfere unduly with the teacher training program.. 
Moreover, the general attitudes towards the experiment and self- con- 
frontation via CCTV/VTl have been positive. 



2, 3 Various sub -studies 

In addition to the factorial design for examining the self-assessment of 
the student teachers, the arrangement of the study also permits investi- 
gation of the following problems: 

1 . Assessment of student teaxhers by educational experts 

The micro-lessons of the student teachers have been assessed by four 
educational experts. These independent assessments have been examined 
for agreement between two of them. An analysis of variance model was 
then used to help find out whether, taking the '''average assessment" of 
the experts as a criterion, participation in the experiment had resulted 
in any demonstrable effects upon the teaching behavior of the student 
teachers. 



2. 



The self-assessment of the student teachers and the assessments 



of the educational experts 
An important goal in teacher training is to develop the skill of the 
student teachers in interpreting educational Irocesscs "objectively", 
i. e. realistically. In order to study the "degree of objectivity" in the 
perception and evaluation of the student teachers, it is necessary to 
have an external criterion. In the experiment this external criterion 
consists of the "average assessment" of the educational experts. An 
examination of the "objectivity" of the student teachers' self -assessment, 
as defined below, also requires, however, that there should be a basis 
for assessment (e. g. video-recorded teaching situations) and a rating 
scale (categories) that arc identical for both student teachers and 



- 13 - 

experts . The operational definition of "objective" perceptions and eva- 
luations used in this study is based on the experts' average assessment 
as criterion of the objectivity. As a measure of the deviation of the 
student teachers' self-assessment from this criterion, the differences 
have been calculated. This means that a large difference value indicates 
low objectivity and a small difference value indicates high objectivity 
in the student teachers' self-assessment. (The expression "deviations 
in objectivity" refers to variations in the calculated difference values. ) 
The way in which the difference between the experts' average assess- 
ment and the student teachers' self-assessment varies as a result of 
the experimental treatment has been studied by means of an ANOVA 
(Analysis of Variance). 

Furthermore, the observations of the educational experts and the 
student teachers have been studied with a view to finding possible 
similarities in structure. The possible occurrence of an overlapping 
structure between the self-assessment of the student teachers and the 
average assessment of the experts has been investigated by canonical 
correlation analyses. 

3. The influence of student teachers' predispositions and personali- 
ties on their own perception and evaluation of teaching process 
mediated by CCTV/VH techniques 

In order to be able to study a possible connection between the student 
teachers' special perception and evaluation tendencies on the one hand, 
and aspects of their personality on the other, a battery of group test 
has been administered, containing different personality tests, cognitive 
tests and attitude tests. For a detailed presentation of the test battery, 
sec Bicrschenk (1972 f, Ch. 8.2.6). 

4. Follow-up studies 

The student teachers were asked to assess the video-recorded micro- 
-lessons again, first six weeks and then four terms after the experiment 
had been concluded. The purpose of this follow-up was to examine to 
what extent the teacher training had had any effect on their perception 
and evaluation of the micro-lessons video-recorded during their second 
term at the School of Education. An analysis of the special studies in 
points 3 and 4 has not been included, however, in the present phase of 
reporting. 



14 



3. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION SCHEDULE F III: 



VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 



The great majority of studies using CCTV/VR techniques as an instru- 
ment for research and training have relied on well -known test methods. 
If one wants to find the answer to a particular problem, however, it is 
not usually possible to apply old tests to the new problem. 

The development of the measuring instrument "assessment and 
evaluation schedule F III" (cf. Bierschenk, 1972 d and e) started with 
a preliminary experiment (spring term 1968). The construction of the 
measuring instrument was based on the following question: Y/hat do the 
student teachers really tell us when they are confronted with their own 
teaching performances by means of CCTV/VR? Thus the measuring 
instrument was developed from scratch. 

The comments made by the student teachers in the experiment 
during the process of self- confrontation were recorded on tape and then 
subjected to content -analytical treatment. This treatment could be carried 
out with a fairly satisfactory coder agreement, both in deciding the 
coding units ("information units") in the comments of the student 
teachers and in coding the information units in accordance with a 
system of categories (cf. Bierschenk, 1972 d). Thus this treatment 
resulted in an acceptable coder agreement in the categorisation of the 
student teachers'' spontaneous and simultaneous comments during the 
playback of the video-recorded micro-lessons. The separate cate- 
gories have then been re -formulated into the statements which make 
up the assessment and evaluation schedule F III (see Appendix 1). It 
has been proved in various contexts that the technique of content ana- 
lysis can lead to a valid systemization of verbal comments, seen in 
relation to the psychological condition of the individual. Demonstrating 
the validity of a particular technique of content analysis empirically 
occasions the same difficulties as the problem of validity causes in. 
connection with other analysis techniques (see Gerbuer et al, 1969). The 
problem lies in the difficulty of giving an exact definition of a particular 
question, and for that reason it is also very hazardous to say anything 
about the extent to which one has successfully measured what was to be 
measured. Since in many studies tests have been used that were 
originally constructed for another purpose, it should be pointed out 



15 



that the statements included in the measuring instrument reflect the pro- 
blem areas on which the student teachers themselves have spontaneously 
focused attention. The content analysis only makes it possible to judge 
the content validity of the instrument, but this is a very essential and 
desirable form of validity. It is often missing from psychological tests 
on personality, or is only said to e::ist on flimsy grounds. It is logically 
impossible to define "the whole process of perception" and since we 
cannot specify the process of perception completely, we cannot know 
whether or not we have a measuring instrument of "true validity". We 
must, therefore, be content to estimate the validity indirectly. The 
results presented in this report are based almost exclusively on this 
instrument. 

The problem areas which emerged from the student teachers' 
simultaneous comments during the process of self- confrontation have 
been categorised according to the following six dimensions constructed 
a priori: 



1. ego-ego relation 

2. ego -pupil relation 

3. ego-NPO relation 

(i. e. relation between ego 
and non -personal objects) 



4. pupil -ego relation 

5. pupil -pupil relation 

6. pupil -NPO relation 



These dimensions are defined in the assessment and evaluation 
schedule F III by a total of 79 statements. The instrument has been 
constructed to quantify the individual's ability to (a) assimilate informa- 
tion (perceive) (b) digest information (evaluate) and (c) use this informa- 
tion (modify). 

Point c can only be studied to a limited extent within the framework 
of this experiment. As is shown in Appendix 1, the assessment and 
evaluation schedule F III contains for each statement (a) a scale for 
estimating the occurrence of or the quality of a, certain attribute and 
(b) a scale for evaluating this attribute in relation to the micro-lesson 
in question. In addition, it is stated with regard to each assessment 
whether the student teachers are (a) fairly certain or (b) very uncertain 
about the assessment concerned. The wording "rather certain" was 
chosen in preference to "very certain" (completely certain) in order to 
avoid having too many people choose alternative b so as to be on the 
safe side. 



16 



The expression "during this lesson" has been used for the purpose 
of binding the student teachers' assessments to episodic judgments 
rather than more general judgments. The student teachers were given 
no training or knowledge of the content of the assessment and evalua- 
tion schedule F III before the experiment, as a guarantee that at least 
the assessment following the first experience of self- confrontation was 
not controlled by the experimenter. Moreover the assessments were 
carried out retroactively because of the simultaneous comments. 

The assessment and evaluation schedule F III was divided into three 
main categories, with a varying number of sub-categories, as shown in 
the following presentation, which were operationally defined by the 
statements given in Box 1 . 

Box 1. Statements that define the main and sub-categories in the 
assessment and evaluation schedule F III. 



A ASSESSMENT OF MY OWN PERSON 


State- 






ment No. 


I 


My emotional reactions 


1-6 


II 


Voice, pitch 


7-9 


III 


Movements 


10-15 


IV 


Knowledge 


16 


V 


Powers of expression 


17-23 


B ASSESSMENT OF THE PUPILS' BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ME 


AND TOWARDS EACH OTHER 




I 


My way of leading the class 


24-35 


II 


My attentiveness regarding certain types of pupils 


36-37 


III 


My contact with the pupils 


38 


IV 


Disciplinary measures 


39-40 


V 


The pupils' activity directed against me 


41-47 


VI 


The pupils' contact between themselves 


48-49 


VII 


Assessment of the physical/mental condition 
of the pupils 


50-53 


VIII 


Assessment of the pupils' intellectual activity 


54-58 


C MY 


PLANNING OF THE TEACHING 




I 


Assessment of the prerequisites for planning 
the teaching 


59-60 


II 


The structure of the planning 


61-62 


III 


Aids 


63 


IV 


Use of the blackboard 


64-66 


V 


Following-up steps in the teaching method used 


67-70 


VI 


My way of asking questions 


71-75 


VII 


Noise and disturbance from outside 


76-78 


VIII 


The effect of the studio situation on the pupils 


79 



The great majority of the attributes have only alternatives a and b (cf. Table 2). 
Statement number 6 is the only one with an alternative d, but this was not in- 
cluded in the treatment since the scale is not bi-polar. The 79 statements in- 
cluded in the assessment and evaluation schedule F III describe the six dimen- 
sions shown in Table 2. A few of the statements defining the individual subject- 
-object relationships have been excluded for the analysis of variance treatment. 
As is shown in Table 2 the ego-ego relationship is operationally defined by 
means of 22 statements. Two (8, 9} were excluded since they have two negative 
poles. The ego-pupil relationship is defined by 27 statements of which three 
(2, 11, 14) were excluded. These items have two negative poles. 

In the evaluation consideration has been taken primarily to alternatives a 
and b for the seven-point scales. Three educational experts working indepen- 
dently of each other judged which pole of the 79 bi~ polar scales should be taken 
as the positive one. This assessment has been reported in Bierschenk, 1972 e, 
blue appendix. The scales were reversed only for items where all three experts 
were of the same opinion. (Item number 46 has by mistake been reversed in the 
wrong direction). Appendix 3 gives the positive poles (7) and negative poles (1) 
of the individual statements. In addition the mean, values and standard devia- 
tions for both the student teachers' and the educational experts' perception and 
evaluation are presented. 

Table 2. SUBJECT-OBJECT relationships, a priori distribution of 
statements in assessment and evaluation schedule F III. 






OBJECT 



EGO 1 



PUPIL 2 



I. EGO 



2. PUPIL 



3. NON-PERSONAL 
OBJECT 



1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 


, 9, 


17, 24, 25, 


26, 


27, 


■ " "! 

3, 6, 61, 62, 63, 64, \ 


10, 11, 12, 13, 


14, 


28, 29, 30, 


31, 


32, 


65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 76. j 


15, 16, 18, 19, 


20. 


33, 34, 35, 


36, 


37, 


( 


21, 22, 23, 66, 


71, 


38, 39, 50, 


5.1 , 


52, 








56, 59. 72, 


73, 


74. 








75, 78. 








Questions with 




Questions with 




Questions with 


alternative c: 




alternative 


c: 




alternative c: 


10, 14, 21. 




32, 34. 






6, 63, 70. 


41, 42, 43, 44, 


45, 


40, 48, 49, 


53. 




57, 60, 77, 79. 


46, 47, 54, 55, 


58. 










Questions with 












alternative c: 












47, 55. 













18 - 



If one wishes to prove the existence of symmetrical relations or to be 
able to predict a particular type of behavior, the measuring instrument 
must give evidence of being a reliable measure. A certain amount of infor- 
mation about the reliability of the self -assessment of the student teachers 

can be gained from an examination of the commonality of the variables 

2 
(h. ), i.e. the squared multiple correlation, R.. , can be used as an esti- 

1 IK 

mation of the lower limit of reliability of a particular item. If the decision 

as to whether a certain item has unsatisfactory common variance is based 

2 
on the criterion h. < . 30, then four statements within the area of percep- 
tion (aspect a, ) and three statements within the area of evaluation (aspect 
a ? ) fail to fulfil this limit value. 

Since a separate ANOVA has been carried out for each individual sub- 
ject-object relationship, summed up over the entire variable domain, an 
attempt was also made to calculate the reliability of the individual variable 
domain by means of "Cronbach's alpha". The result indicated, however, 
that in this case this coefficient is not a suitable measure of reliability. 
Therefore, the following have been presented as comparison criteria: 

(1) the squared average multiple correlation 

(2) the average communality and 

(3) an estimation of homogeneity according to Spearman- Brown's 
"prophecy" formula. 

By means of these indexes the reliability of the student teachers' per- 
ception and evaluation v/as estimated (see Appendix 2, Tables 1 and 2). 

Reliability can be defined and estimated in many different ways and for 
that reason estimation based on a single method can easily lead to over- 
-hasty conclusions. 

The examination of reliability has established that, as a whole, the 
reliability of the student teachers' self-assessment is satisfactory. The 
reliability of the individual statements in the educational experts' assess- 
ments has been estimated by means of the intra-class correlation co- 
efficient, r ? . , i. e. for two experts and one teaching occasion. The reliabi- 
lity of the summation variables was also calculated with "Cronbach's 
alpha ' ' . 

The estimations of the reliability of the experts' perception and evalua- 
tion are reported in Appendix 2, Tables 3 and 4. 



19 - 



After the intra-class correlation (r ) had been calculated by means of 
an analysis of variance design, the significance was tested. But interval 
estimations have also been reported and discussed in order to decide to 
what extent the correlations differ demonstrably from zero and to decide 
the limits within which the correlations can be expected to lie (see Bier- 
schenk, 1972 f, pp. 166-133). 

A closer examination of the reasons for the unreliability of individual 

items showed that the decision as to the reliability of a particular item 

could not be based solely on r ? , . Starting with the standard deviations 

(criterion s < . 50), the items that did not either the criterion r ?1 > .27, 

or the criterion r > . 10 were examined. The examination of the distribu- 
n — 

tion in the experts' perception and evaluation showed that there is a number 
of items "without variation". In such cases a reliability measure based on 
variance cannot be used to indicate the agreement in the experts' estima- 
tions. For the same reason, "Cronbach's alpha" does not appear to be al- 
together suitable as a measure of reliability, even if satisfactory reliabi- 
lity coefficients could be demonstrated for certain variable areas (because 
of larger distribution values). 

The fact that there is no variation (criterion s < . 50) was interpreted 
in this analysis as meaning that the agreement in the experts' estimations 
are near enough perfect. But at the same time this means that items 
"without variation" have been assessed in a very routine manner, i. e. 
the same for all or almost all the student teachers. The result of this 
examination of reliability has been summarized in Appendix 2, Table 5. 
Of the 74 items that were included in the analysis, about 13% for percep- 
tion (a. ) and 20% for evaluation (a_) must be regarded as being unreliable. 

In summary, it may be said that the low reliability values obtained 
from the different reliability measurements based on variance have often 
been caused partly by a lack of variance within certain variable areas, 
and partly by the low item covariance. The relatively extensive examina- 
tion of reliability has shown that the assessment and evaluation schedule 
F III can be regarded as being essentially a reliable measuring instrument. 



- 20 



4. ANALYSES OF RESULTS 






Data for the complete design exist for the assessment and evaluation 
schedule F III. This schedule has been made the primary subject for ana- 
lysis and these observation data have been analysed for both level and 
structure. The individual analysis programs have been described in 
Bierschenk, 1972 f, Ch. 10. The summary and discussion of results 
presented in this report concern above all: 

1. ANOVA treatment of the student teachers'" self-assessment (part 2), 

2. ANOVA treatment of the assessments by educational experts (part 3), 
and 

3. ANOVA treatment plus a canonical correlation analysis of the student 
teachers self-assessment and the educational experts' assessments 
(part 4). 

Problems of research method were discussed in comparative detail in 
connection with the individual result analyses. Completed result analyses 
that have not yet been reported include a number of factor analyses and 
simultaneous comments which have been coded. 

If any form of inference statistics is used in the analysis of behavioral 
observation data, then (1) the prerequisites demanded by a particular 
statistical mathematic model should be fulfilled, and (2) the precision 
and power of the statistical tests used should have been explicitly 
determined. 

As omnibus tests, significant F tests are very useful indicators of 
systematic differences among cell means, but only a careful examination 
of detail will make it possible to interpret the experimental results 
thoroughly. If, in addition, the design is rather complex, a large number 
of F tests are needed, and that in its turn increases the probability of a 
certain number of tests resulting in random significances. For this 
reason, one should avoid attaching too much importance to isolated 
results. The guideline followed in the evaluation of the analyses of 
results has therefore been the interpretability of the patterns in the F 
tests. In order to obtain additional and more objective indicators as to 
whether there is any point in a more thorough interpretation of the main 
and interaction effects respectively, or in carrying out contrast analyses 
and in commenting on simple effects, the precision and power of the 
significant F tests have also been calculated. 



21 



Thus the individual ANOVA results have been evaluated step-wise. 
First (1), the interpretability of the patterns in the F tests was examined. 
Then the precision and power were estimated in order to decide (2. i) the 
size of the effects and (2. 2) the probability of discovering an effect of a 
particular size. Contrast analyses (3) were not carried out until this 
point. Only effects at the level of a = 01 which shows a probability of at 
least . 70 of discovering a particular size of effect have been interpreted, 
however. Values lov/er than this are of little use as evidence or as a 
basis for interpretation. 



4. 1 Analysis of levels 

4.1.1 Step 1: Patterns in the F tests 

The interpretation of the first step in the individual analyses of results 
(parts 2, 3 and 4) shows that the F tests in all three parts of the analysis 
have led to interpretable patterns. A summary of the patterns in the F 
tests, referring to the respective part of the analysis, is given in Table 
2. Owing to the construction of the F tests as omnibus tests, the interpre- 
tation cannot go further at this stage of the analysis than to establish 
that there is a systematic pattern in the F tests, that in addition permits 
an interpretation that is meaningful from the point of view of educational 
psychology. 

The pattern in the F tests for the self-assessment of the student 
teachers shows no significant main effect either in Factor T (self-con- 
frontation via CCTV/VR) or in Fa.ctor H (dyadic confrontation in the form 
of traditional tutoring). In addition, H is accepted for the factor combi- 
nation TK. 

The demonstrable interaction effects partly imply, however, that 
externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR leads to reactions 
that are influenced by the predispositions and predictions of the student 
teachers and that these reactions are modified by the information that 
the student teachers have received. It is also worth noting that the student 
teachers, regardless of the type of influence, seem to modify their per- 
ceptions and evaluations from lesson to lesson as far as their own be- 
havior towards an object is concerned (ego dimension). There is no such 
modification, however, in the subject -object relationships where the 
student teachers must relate the actions of other persons to their own 
person (pupil dimension). 



- 22 - 



Table 2, Summary of the significant F .tests for the summation 
variables in the respective sub-analyses 



1 

Source 


1 
Ego-ego relation 
1 2 3 


2 

Ego -pupil relation 
1 2 3 


3 
Ego-NPO relation 
1 2 3 


T 
H 
TH 




'\< '<* 


, 


* 


sj%. sfc 




U 

UT 
UH 
UTH 






'£ 'I* 






* s!' >!= * 


A 

AT 
AH 
ATH 


sj: sjc 




•A, 


* ■■'■• 
* 


J, ,U U, J, 

-1* •v- -i* -i- 


* * 


AU 
AUT 
AUH 
AUTH 


> t z ;,c 










* * 




Pupil 
1 


4 
-ego 
2 


relation 
3 


Pupil 
1 


5 
-pupil relation 
2 3 


6 
Pupil -NPO relation 
1 2 3 


T 
H 
TH 


;(c 


jU V, 






'!< -!' 


. . 


U 
UT 

UH 
UTH 




*,' 5 != 


3jC * 






* 


A 

AT 
AH 
ATH 


♦ >\i 


5 !< >[c 


3k Sfc 




;!< $ 




AU 

AUT 
AUH 
AUTH 


>Jc $ 




* 


; !' >|c 




4, .j- ■*'- & 



t- * 



Analyses of student teachers' 1 self-assessment 

Analyses of educational experts' assessments 

Analyses of student teachers' self-assessment and educational 

experts' assessments 

F (1,92) = 7.08 

F.^ (1,92) = 4.00 






- 23 - 



With regard to the summation variables, the pattern in the F tests for 
the average assessments of the experts shows with respect to the TH and 
ATH interaction effects a greater degree of homogeneity and more signifi- 
cances than the pattern in the F tests for the self-assessment of the subjects. 
Moreover, the average assessment of the experts in the pupil dimension 
(pupil-ego, pupil-pupil relationships) has led to significant main effects in 
Factor H. 

An examination of the influence of traditional tutoring with regard to 
the interaction effects (Factors U, K) shows that these interaction effects 
(UH, AH) largely apply to the pupil dimension. One possible explanation is 
that as a result of the tutor' s influence the climate of behavior both between 
student teacher and pupils and among the pupils themselves have changed. 
But these effects can also simply be a consequence of the presence of the 
tutor in the classroom, which can have had a subduing effect on the pupils. 
In this context, it is not possible to decide which of these explanations is 
the most probable. 

As far as the interaction effects involving Factor U arc concerned, the 
analysis of the self-assessment of the student teachers shows that these 
effects are also mainly restricted to the pupil dimension. Y/ithin the ego- 
-NPO relationship both student teachers and experts appear to have observed 
changes between microlessons 1 and 2. 

The significant interaction effects for the factor combinations TH and 
ATH imply that the combination of T and H produces demonstrable differen- 
ces between the groups. No effect can be seen in the CJTH interaction, how- 
ever. 

The pattern in the F tests has been examined for variations in the ob- 
jectivity of the student teachers' self-assessment. The interaction effects 
involving CCTV/VR imply that the processes of self- confrontation have 
resulted in demonstrable variations in the differences between the student 
teachers' self-assessment and the experts' average assessment. These 
effects indicate that there is a variation in the objectivity of the student 
teachers' assessment of the relations in which ego is the subject. Demon- 
strable variations in the differences between the assessments of the student 
teachers given traditional tutoring in the form of dyadic confrontation and 
those not given this treatment, however, relate to the pupil dimension. 

Moreover, the effects in Factor U show that, regardless of the factors 
T and H, the objectivity of the observations of the student teachers have 
been influenced b/ the micro-lessons. 






- 24 



Thus, on the question of the ego-ego relationship (the student teacher's 
own person) and the behavior of the pupils towards the student teacher (e. g. 
the extent to which the pupils are "socially provocative"), the difference 
between the assessment of the student teachers and the experts average 
assessment shows noticeable variations from micro-lesson 1 to micro - 
-lesson 2. It should be noted that both effects relate to the variable domains 
where ego is the object. 

For Factor A the F tests show a very homogeneous pattern for the 
observation data of both student teachers and experts (cf. Table 2, sub- 
-analysis one and two). This means that, regardless of the experimental 
conditions and specific statements, the perception (a ) and the evaluation 
(a ? ) are different. The homogeneous pattern that appears in all the variable 
domains is an expected outcome. This factor was included in the analysis 
as a precision factor and not because of any wish directly to compare per- 
ception and evaluation. 

In part three of the analysis, Factor A shows demonstrable effects 
within the ego -pupil relation and within the pupil-ego relation. This result 
implies that there are differences in objectivity between the perception and 
evaluation of the student teachers (regardless of the experimental condi- 
tions or lesson concerned) within these sectors. 

It is not possible to make any deeper interpretation in this step of the 
analysis. Only an examination of the significant F tests by means of 
contrast analyses can provide information as to what has caused these 
significances. 

4.1.2 Step 2; Precision and power in the F tests 

Summaries and discussions of results have been reported in more detail 
in Bierschenk, 1972 f, parts 2, 3, and 4. In these discussions, however, 
the effects have only been taken into consideration when precision and power 

estimations have indicated that there is a conclusive basis for intcrpreta- 

/\ 2 
tion. The predictor variance (u ) in the significant effects proved to be 

relatively low in all three parts of the analysis. But since the numerical 

A 2 

size of u is dependent on how many sources of variation are included in 

an ANOVA, a comparison criterion is needed if one is to be able to decide 

2 
on an objective basisi whether the <o values presented here are indications 

of unimportant correlations or perhaps of important empirical results. 



25 - 



J. Cohen's (1969) "effect size index" (f), which gives a certain effect size 
(ES) when all other effects in the analysis have been held constant, has been 
used for this purpose. Cohen, J. (1969, p. 278) denotes a small effect with 
f = . 10. A medium effect corresponds to f = .25 and a large effect to f = . 40. 

If f is calculated, Cohen's tables (pp. 282-347) can also be used to 
decide the power of the F tests. The tables must be used with a certain 
amount of care, however, since in factorial designs df in the denominator 
no longer agrees with the n values stated in the appropriate table. In factori- 
al designs there is usually a lower number of df in the denominator than 
the number stated for the table values. As a result, above all as far as 
the main effects are concerned, the power that can be read in the tables is 
an over -estimation of the probability of the effect in question. Main effects 
v/ith an f < . 35 constitute an uncertain basis for interpretation (for a more 
detailed discussion, see Bierschenk, 1972 f, Ch. 15.2). 

A summary of the probability values (g), referring to the respective 

part of the analysis concerned, is given in Table 3. 

2 
Information on the precision values of the effects (co , f) can be ob- 
tained from parts 2, 3, and 4. With these estimations of power it becomes 
possible not only to state that an effect of a particular size does exist, but 
also to state the degree of probability that this effect really is of the stated 
size,. Table 3 shows how the step-wise procedure has finally produced only 
a few effects within each separate sub-analysis that are suita.ble for more 
detailed consideration and interpretation. In the light of this results, there 
has been no reason to undertake a more thorough interpretation of the 
contrast analyses. 



4. 1 . 3 Step 3: Post-hoc comparisons 

Since it can be difficult to define what is to be regarded as really valuable 
information, the controls described above were applied in order to decide 
whether or not a more detailed examination and discussion of the results 
of the experiment would be worthwhile. 

As was pointed out (Bierschenk, 1972 f, Chs. 3 and 11), there have 
unfortunately been far too many cases in which no attempt has been made to 
state to what extent the requirements for a given method of analysis have 
been complied with, or to decide the precision and power of the tests in 
question. Only alter such estimations have been made, however, it is 
possible to judge the usefulness of the significant F values for a more 



26 - 



Table 3. Summary of power values for the significant F tests (a = .01) 
in the three parts of the analysis (summation variable) 



Source 


Ego- 
i 


1 
-ego relation 
2 3 


L-„ -1....L.., .m._l_ _....L._ i.J.IB.,. ,, .... ... - „„, u, , n 

2 

Ego-pupil relation 

1 2 3 


T 
H 
TH 




.62 




.62 




U 

UT 
UH 
UTH 


>.99 


.78 


.78 






A 
AT 
AH 
ATH 


>. 99 


>. 99 
. 66 


.72 


>, 99 

.91 


>. 99 

.93 


AU 

AUT 
AUH 
AUTH 


.62 










Source 


Ego 
1 


3 

-NPO relation 
2 3 


Pupil • 
1 


4 
-ego relation 
2 3 


T 

H 
TH 




. 


. 


. 72 




U 

UT 
UH 
UTH 


, 83 


.67 




. 83 
.77 


.61 


A 
AT 
AH 
ATH 


>, 99 


>. 99 

. 52 

>.99 


>. 99 


>. 99 

.67 
>. 99 


.67 
55 


AU 

AUT 
AUH 
AUTH 


. 81 


ft 8 b 


, 57 







- 27 



Table 3, (Cont. ) 



Source 




5 


6 




Pupil -pupil relation 


Pupil JMPO relation 




1 


2 3 


1 2 3 


T 








H 




.78 




TH 






.52 


U 




.46 




UT 








UH 




.84 




UTH 








A 


>. 99 


>. 99 


.95 .54 


AT 








AH 


.52 


.89 




ATH 






.76 .73 .93 


AU 








AUT 


.55 






AUH 






.69 .85 


AUTH 
* 









Analyses of student teachers'' self-assessment 

Analyses of educational experts' assessments 

Analyses of student teachers' self-assessment and educational experts' 

assessments 



detailed study of the relationship between the simple effects. An evaluation 
of the experiment's data with the F statistics involves testing the null 
hypothesis. Rejection of the null hypothesis implies that the set of data 
in question contains systematic effects. An F test does not indicate the 
direction of the effects, however, nor does it state the precision of the 
measurement or the probability of an effect being of a certain size. Seen 
in the light of the power estimations tobe found in Table 3, the self-assess- 
ment of the student teachers could not on the whole be used for a detailed 
analysis of the contrasts, and for this reason the contrast data were 
presented as an appendix (Bierschenk, 1972 e). Compared to the self- 
-assessment of the student teachers, the average assessment of the ex- 
perts at least with regard to the TH and ATH interaction effects has resulted 
in a more uniform pattern in the F tests, in greater precision, and in a 
higher degree of probability for the proven effects. This type of result was 
expected, however. A large proportion of the variation in the student 
teachers' self-assessment can probably be traced to differences between 



28 



the individuals that existed prior to the experiment. Since the analysis of 
the student teachers' observation data is based on n = 96, while the ana- 
lysis of the average assessment is based on k = 2, the standard deviation 
of the means is smaller in the experts' observations. This in its turn 
means that the differences between the cell means need not be as large as 
for the student teachers in order to produce demonstrable effects. 

Since there are always deficiencies which could have led to small 
effects and low probabilities, an account of the contrast analyses may be 
of interest for further research work. Any reader who is also interested 
in result analyses 2 and 3 can refer to Bierschenk, 1972 e. Relatively few 
significances have shown a satisfactory power in the effects and these are 
therefore discussed in the chapter "Final discussion". (See Bierschenk, 
1972 f, parts 2, 3, and 4. ) 

In order to obtain a more surveyable perspective of the tendencies 
that seem to appear in the separate analyses, a summary of the main 
effects is given in Table 4. 

Table 4 shows how the average assessment of the experts alone re- 
sulted in demonstrable main effects in Factor H of the experiment. The 
mean values indicate a more positive assessment of the group with dyadic 
confrontation. 

The self-assessment of the student teachers has for Factor U resulted 
in three demonstrable effects, all of which involve the ego dimension. 
According to the average assessment of the experts, however, the de- 
monstrable effects primarily involve the pupil dimension. But both student 
teachers and experts have reported changed values in variable domain 3, 
i. e. in the relation between the student teachers and the aspects concer- 
ning teaching method. In both cases, the change was positive. In this 
factor, significant variations in the objectivity of the student teachers' 
self-assessment can be demonstrated in two cases. In the ego-ego relation- 
ship the difference is greatest in connection with lesson 1 and diminishes 
strongly in connection with lesson 2. The same tendency can be observed 
in variable domain 4. 

Factor A represents two aspects of the measuring instrument, namely 
perception (a, ) and evaluation (a~). Differences between perception and 
evaluation appear in each variable domain for both the self-assessment of 
the student teachers and the average assessment of the experts. The tend- 
ency in both sets of data is the same. The mean values seem to indicate a 








- 29 - 



tendency for the perception of the experts to be more positive than that of 
the student teachers. 

Variations in the differences between the self-assessment of the 
student teachers and the objectivity criterion are significant only for 
variable domains 2 and 4. There is a very slight difference between the 
objectivity criterion and the student teachers' perception regarding the 
pupil -ego relation (4). No socially provocative behavior on the part of 
the pupils seems to have occurred. In their evaluation, however, the 
deviation is comparatively great. The student teachers evaluate possible 
behavior of this kind as being rather distressing, while the average 
assessment of the experts is that it is relatively easy to deal with. 

Table 4. A summary of the mean values of the significant main effects 
for the partial analyses 1, 2, and 3. 



Variable 


Student teachers' 


Experts" average 


Student teachers' 


domain 


self-assessment (l) 


assessment (2) 


s elf- 


-assessment 










in relation to ex- 










pert 


s average 










assessment 


(3) 




Factor H 


Factor 


H 




Factor 


H 




h l h 2 


h l 


h 2 


h l 




h 2 


4 


_ 


(5. 21 


5.14) 


_ 




_ 


5 


- 


(4,85 


4.61) 


- 




- 




Factor U 


Factor 


CJ 




Factor 


U 




U l U 2 


Uj 


u 2 


U l 




U 2 


1 


4. 60 4. 80 


_ 


_ 


(.43 




. 28) 


2 


' (4. 64 4. 74) 


- 


- 


- 




- 


3 


(4.90 5,04) 


(4.95 


5,01) 


- 




- 


4 


(4.93 5.00) 


(5. 21 


5.15) 


(.27 




.14) 


5 


- 


(4. 80 


4. 66) 


- 








Factor A 


Factor 


A 




Factor A 




a l a 2 


a 
1 


a 2 


a l 




a 2 


1 


4. 90 4, 50 


5, 22 


4.90 


~ 




. 


2 


(4.77 4. 62) 


5.04 


4. 59 


. 28 




. 03 


3 


4.66 5.28 


4.68 


5. 28 


- 




~ 


4 


6.12 3,82 


6.15 


4.20 


(. 03 




.38) 


5 


4.88 4.17 


5. 11 


4. 33 


- 




- 


6 


5.27 5.62 


(4. 85 


5.03) 


- 




- 



() Uncertain basis for interpretation. 



30 



4.1.4 Implications of ANOVA results 

The use of different analysis techniques and the stepwise approach used 
in reporting the results aim at making the evaluation more critical and 
thereby more objective. 

Y/e hope that the result analyses can serve as examples of the appli- 
cation of principles of research method and of how one can explicitly 
prove if and to what extent the assumptions of the statistical -mathemati- 
cal models are fulfilled. In this way the inferences become meaningful. 

In addition, it is hoped that the detailed description of the experimen- 
tal conditions (see Bierschenk, 1972 f, Chs. 4 and 5) will provide: 

1. increased knowledge of possible ways of using CCTV/VR as a 
research and training instrument, 

2. increased possibilities of repeating behavioral experiments or at 
least 

3. increased opportunities for comparing individual research results. 

Finally, keeping in mind Stickell's (1963) examination of research report: 
concerning ''televised and face-to-face instruction", the results can be 
seen as 

4. a contribution to improving the quality of research results dealing 
with the use of CCTV/VR in educational contexts. 



From an empirical point of view this experiment has produced results 
which cannot be made the basis of dichotornous decisions, i.e. either-or 
decisions. If the experimental results are interpreted purely pragmati- 
cally or from the point of view of economy, it might seem reasonable 
simply to recommend the cheapest alternative, i. c. the student teachers 
seem to need no tutorship in the form of dyadic confrontation and/or 
externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR, since the experi- 
mental conditions have not led to any demonstrable main effects. 

Speaking against such a decision, however, are certain alternative 
explanations of the null hypothesis and the fact that one cannot draw such 
farreaching conclusions from a single experimental result. Another im- 
portant argument against such a decision is the consideration of the 
possible longterm effects and this aspect will be examined more closely 
in the experiment's follow-up studies. 



- 31 - 



There can be many reasons for accepting the null hypothesis for a 
particular factor or factor combination, and therefore it is difficult to 
say anything definite when the null hypothesis is accepted. Despite this, 
a section entitled "Final discussion" has been included for each part of 
the analysis, presenting some more or less speculative considerations 
that could be regarded as possible implications of the results. In the 
following, we try to summarize point for point. The first figure states 
the order of sequence. The figure following the colon denotes the part 
of this study in which the result has been discussed in detail. Thus in 
the case of the self-assessment of the student teachers, for example, 
(1:2) states the results of both externally mediated self- confrontation via 
CCTV/VR (Factor T) and dyadic confrontation in the form of traditional 
tutoring (Factor K), (2:2) states the results of the teaching situations 
(Factor U), (3:2) states the results of the aspects in the assessment and 
evaluation schedule (Factor A), (4:2) states the results of the conclusive 
higher order interaction effects. After the results given in each sub- 
- section, possible implications are presented. 

The educational and psychological implications that have already been 
presented in connection with the individual experiment results have been 
divided between the following two categories: (1) Implications based on 
the results of the experiment and (2) implications based on more specula- 
tive considerations. 

The first category covers implications that either (1) are of a 
descriptive nature, i. e. establishing facts, or (2) are based on experi- 
mental data which provide a conclusive basis for interpretation. The 
second category covers implications that either (l) are based on experi- 
mental data which do not provide a conclusive basis for interpretation, 
or (2) are of a purely speculative nature. 

The borderline between the two categories, however, can doubtless 
be challenged in many cases. The main reason for making this division 
was to make clear which implications can be said to be based on the 
conclusive effects of the experiment. Another motive was that the large 
number of implications presented could give an undesirable impression 
of indecision. Finally, some results and implications have been further 
clarified by short comments. 



- 32 




1:2 Re suits: Student teachers' self-assessment 

Neither externally mediated self -confrontation via CCTV/VR nor 
dyadic confrontation in the form of traditional tutoring (Factor H) 
have led to significant effects. 

Implication, based on these results 

The experimental conditions produce no effect, i. e. have not led to 

any difference in the ability of the student teachers to discriminate. 

Implications, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The experimental conditions lasted for too short a time for the 
various influences to achieve observable effects. 

2. Self- confrontation requires systematic training in receiving and 
adapting first-hand information, i. e. "self "-information not 
mediated verbally. 

3. Self- confrontation entails a temporary de -organisation or de- 
- automatization, the first phase of which produces in many 
people feelings of surprise, fear, shock and/or the adoption of 
defensive attitudes. 

4. The tutor has not succeeded in influencing the student teachers 
to any degree since they have not yet developed suitable test 
criteria, i. e. educational-psychological norms. 

5. Tutor and student teacher avoid a relevant critical analysis by, 
e. g. using words such as "a verbal portrait of an individual" 
(Stoller, 1970, p. 11) in order to avoid having to make a criti- 
cal examination of the student teacher's own behavior. 



1:3 Results: Educational experts' assessments 

The null hypothesis is accepted for externally mediated self-con- 
frontation via CCTV/VR (Factor T), but is rejected for dyadic con- 
frontation in the form of traditional tutorship (Factor H). Significant 
effects have been demonstrated within pupil-ego relations (4) and 
pupil-pupil relations (5). 

The estimation of precision and power indicates, however, that 
these effects can hardly be regarded as an acceptable basis for 
int e r pr etation . 

Keeping in mind the far from, conclusive effects, a few possible 
but rather more hypothetical interpretations are presented below. 



Implications, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The tutor has influenced the student teachers in such a way that 
their behavior has become more positive. Thus the tutor has 
successfully mediated both his teaching strategy and some 
concrete suggestions for action and the student teachers have 
succeeded in modifying their own behavior on the basis of the 
dyadic confrontation. In addition, the result seems to be in 
agreement with the tutor's intention, namely to focus the tutor- 
ship upon problems of pupil activation. 

2. A prerequisite of traditional tutorship is the presence of the 
tutor during the actual teaching process, and there is therefore 
a possibility that these effects have arisen as a result of the 
subduing effect. that the teacher's presence has had on the 
pupils activity. 

The second alternative (2) seems the most probable, since none of 
the relations where the student teacher is the subject have led to 
demonstrable effects. 

1:4 F^e suits: Student teachers' self-assessment and educational 
experts' assessments 

Neither externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR 
(Factor T) nor dyadic confrontation in the form of traditional tutor- 
ship (Factor H) have led to significant effects. 

Implication based on these results 

Since no deviations in the differences between the student teachers' 
self-assessment and the average assessment of the experts can be 
demonstrated, the objectivity, c. g. the "gap" between the objecti- 
vity criterion and the student teachers' self -assessment has not 
been influenced by the experimental treatment. In the context of 
the definition of objectivity applied in this study, the deviations in 
objectivity in the observations of the student teachers do not vary 
as a consequence of the experimental treatment 

^•^ Results: student teachers' self-assessment 

The teaching situations, i. c. micro-lessons 1 and 2 (Factor U), 
have resulted in significant effects concerning the ego dimension: 



54 



c g°- e C° relation (1), ego-pupil relation (2), ego-NFO relation (3). 
For the pupil dimension (variable domains 4-6), the null hypothesis 
is accepted. The estimations of precision and power indicate that 
the effect within the ego -ego relation may be looked upon as a con- 
clusive basis for interpretation. 

Implications, based on these results 

1. Taking micro -lesson 1 as a starting-point, the student teachers 
seem to be able to predict their own behavior and test these 
predictions during micro-lesson 2, and subsequently to modify 
the structure of perception and evaluation, or the concrete be- 
havior. 

As far as the student teachers' perception and evaluation 
of the pupil dimensions is concerned, the observations indi- 
cate no changes. 

Implications, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The pupils' behavior has not changed (pupil as subject). 

2. The student teachers lack criteria for assessing the behavior 
of the pupils. 

3. The student teachers have been primarily occupied with their 
own person and have therefore not had time to study the be- 
havior of the pupils in any detail. 

2:3 Results: Educational experts assessments. 

For the teaching occasions (Factor U) the null hypothesis is rejec- 
ted within the ego-NPO relation (3), pupil-ego relation (4) and 
pupil-pupil relation (5). The mean values indicate a positive change 
with regard to the ego-NPO relation, while the change for the 
other relations (4, 5) is negative. Estimations of precision and 
power, with the possible exception of the pupil-ego relation (4), 
indicate an inconclusive basis for interpretation, and for that 
reason the interpretations suggested below should be regarded as 
being hypothetical. 

Implications, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The examination of effects implies that the behavior of the 
pupils becomes more disturbing during lesson 2, despite the 



fact that the student teacher's teaching technique improves. 
This could mean that there is a "relaxation effect". It is 
possible that the first micro-lesson was rather tense, since 
neither the pupils nor the student teacher were accustomed to 
the situation, while the second lesson could have been felt by 
both student teacher and pupils to be a more "everyday" situa- 
tion, i. e. the behavior of the pupils has been more normal, in 
other words "more disturbing". 

The small change in quality of the student teacher's teaching 
method has little significance for the teacher -pupil relation or, 
in other words, for the climate in the classroom. 



2:4 Results: Self-assessment of student teachers and average assess- 
ment of educational experts 

For the teaching occasions (Factor U) as cause of variation, the 
null hypothesis was rejected for the ego-ego relation and the pupil - 
-ego relation. The mean values of the cells indicate variations in 
the objectivity of the student teachers' self-assessment that were 
greatest in micro-lesson 1, but dimished substantially in micro- 
-lesson 2. An examination of the precision and power in this result 
implies that there are no conclusive empirical grounds for inter- 
pretation of the effects. 

Implications, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The diminished deviation from the objectivity criteria of the 
student teachers' self-assessment from micro-lesson 1 to 
micro-lesson .2 implies a more realistic assessment of their 
performances. 

2. From the point of view of the student teachers, it seems ob- 
vious that progress has been made on the second teaching 
occasion. According to the educational experts, however, this 
is not the case. 



3:2 Results: Student teachers' self-assessment 

The perception and evaluation of the student teachers arc included 
as Factor A (aspect) in the analysis of variance. The null hypothe- 
sis is rejected for this factor within all six subject -object rela- 



36 



tions. The assessments of precision and power show very high values, 
with the exception of the ego-pupil relation. This means that the 
effects can be regarded as providing a conclusive basis for interpre- 
tation. 

Implications, based on these results 

1. Irrespective of the experimental conditions, the student teachers' 
perception differs from their evaluation. Moreover, Table 4 
shows that their perception has resulted in positive scores. 

2. Irrespective of the experimental conditions, the student teachers 
have evaluated these behavioral aspects as being essential and 
undisturbing, with the exception of the pupil-ego relation where 
the student teachers indicate that "socially provocative behavior" 
(if it had occurred) would have been considered relatively 
distressing. 

3. A comparison of the student teachers evaluation, which relates 
to their perception of the behavioral aspects constituting variable 
domains 4 and 5, imply that the student teachers appear to have 

a high level of tolerance when it comes to the behavior of the 
pupils towards each other (variable domain 5), even if it is felt 
to be comparatively undisciplined, while direct action on the 
part of the pupils against the student teacher (with a conscious or 
unconscious element of provocation in it) is felt to be distressing. 

3:3 Results: Educational experts' assessments 

The experts' perception and evaluation (Factor A) show significant 
effects in all six subject-object relations. With the exception of the 
pupil-NPO relation, the estimations of precision and power have led 
to very high values. In this context, the effects can safely be regar- 
ded as a satisfactory basis for interpretation. 

Impli cations, based on these results 

1. Irrespective of the experimental conditions, the experts' percep- 
tion differs from their evaluation. The experts' perception has 
in each variable domain resulted in positive scores. 

2. Irrespective of the experimental conditions, the experts have in 
each case evaluated these behavioral aspects of the situation in 
question as being both essential and undisturbing (cf. 3:2). 



5 I 



3:4 Re suits: Student teachers' self-assessment and educational experts' 
assessments 

With regard to the objectivity of the perception and evaluation of the 
student teachers (Factor A), the null hypothesis is rejected within 
ego-pupil (2) and pupil-ego (4) relations. Table 4 shows that the 
student teachers' perception of the ego -pupil relation differs negatively 
from that of the experts, while there is only a slight positive deviation 
in the evaluation. Within the pupil-ego relation, the situation is the 
exact reverse. The estimations of precision and power show, how- 
ever, that only the effect within the ego -pupil relation provides a 
conclusive basis for interpretation. 

Implication, based on these results 

1. Irrespective of the experimental conditions, the deviation in the 
objectivity of the student teachers' perception of their own ac- 
tions towards the pupils (2) is negative. 

Implication, based on more speculative considerations 

1. The effect size for the pupil-ego relation can hardly be said to 
indicate a conclusive basis for interpretation. While the student 
teachers evaluate socially provocative behavior as rather 
distressing, the experts evaluate it as being comparatively un- 
disturbing. In his role as a leader, the teacher has a decisive 
influence on the social-psychological structure. Flic interpreta- 
tion of what is socially provocative behavior should, therefore, 
be highlighted to a greater extent in educational contexts. 

Externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR (Factor T) and 
dyadic confrontation in the form of traditional tutorship (Factor K), i. e. 
the factor combination TH, have only led to demonstrable effects in con- 
nection with the experts' average assessment. For the TH interaction the 
null hypothesis is rejected within the ego-ego relation (1), the ego-pupil 
relation (2), and the pupil-NPO relation (6). A possible explanation of the 
effects in the TH interaction is that the experiment was carried out in two 
phases, with a year's interval, which could have caused a change in the 
experts' perception and evaluation structure. The estimations of precision 
and power imply, however, that these effects should not be made the basis 
of any interpretation. 









The exerpimental factors T and H plus the factor combination TH have 
also been examined for signs of interaction with Factor A (aspect) and 
Factor U (teaching occasion). A short summary is given below of results 
that fulfil our criteria for interpretation. 

4:2 Results: Student teachers' self-assessment 

Only a few of the interaction effects fulfil the requirements. The fol- 
lowing interactions have been examined in more detail: (l ) AUT with- 
in the ego-NPO relation, (2) ATM within the pupil-NPO relation and 
(3) AUH within the pupil-NPO relation. 

Externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/'VR (Factor T) 
in combination with aspect (Factor A) and/or teaching occasion (Fac- 
tor U) led to changes within the ego dimension (variable domains 1-3). 
On the other hand, dyadic confrontation in the form of traditional 
tutoring (Factor H) in combination with Factor A and/or U resulted 
in changes within the pupil dimension (variable domains 4-6). 

1. When considering the AUT interaction the perception of student 
teachers receiving only externally mediated self- confrontation 
via CCTV/VR shows no change. There is, however, a tendency 
for the evaluation to become more positive. 

2. The perception of the student teachers who were not given this 
treatment showed a positive change, while the group's evalua- 
tion appears to be relatively unchanged. 

3. When considering the ATK and AUH interaction the perception of 
the student teachers who received only dyadic confrontation ia 
demonstrably more positive than the perception of those not 
given this treatment. However, through dyadic confrontation 
the student teachers'' perception became demonstrably more 
negative. 

4. The perception of the student teachers who were not given this 
treatment showed a positive change. 

5. The evaluation reflects the tendency for the evaluation of the 
student teachers receiving traditional tutoring to change positive- 
ly, while the evaluation of those not influenced in this way changes 
negatively. No significant differences between the simple effects 
for points 1, 2, 4, and 5 were demonstrable. 






39 - 



Implications, based on these results 

1. It seems reasonable to assume that above all the student teachers 
receiving only externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR 
should have shown a change in perception, while the perception of 
those not receiving this treatment should have been more con- 
stant. An unexpected tendency is for the evaluation to change as a 
result of the self- confrontation via CCTV/VR, despite the fact 
that the evaluation structures are possibly more difficult to in- 
fluence. This effect must naturally be looked upon as a relatively 
isolated result, but nevertheless it seems to point in the same 
direction as the result obtained by Perlmutter ct al. (1967, pp. 
900-905), namely that the subjects incline to change their struc- 
ture of evaluation first. 

2. The fact that the perception of the student teachers receiving only 
traditional tutoring (dyadic confrontation) changes negatively can 
possibly depend upon the fact that the tutor has pointed out to 
them certain concrete aspects of their behavior while at the same 
time verifying their evaluations. 









4:3 Results: Educational experts' assessments 

Several of the interaction effects fulfil our requirements for inter- 
pretation. However, Factor T in combination with Factor A and/or 
U has neither within the ego dimension nor within the pupil dimension 
resulted in demonstrable interaction effects. Factor H in combina- 
tion with Factor A and/or U has, on the other hand, only led to signi- 
ficant effects within the pupil dimension. With respect to our criteria 
for interpretation, the following interaction effects have been examined 
in more detail: (l) UH within the pupil-ego relation and (2) AH within 
the pupil -pupil relation. 

Furthermore, the ATI! interactions in the variable domains 1, 
2, and 6 show medium and larpe effect sizes. But since the educa- 
tional experts' assessment of the protocol material was carried out 
in two phases (first phase 19&9, second phase 1970), it cannot be pre- 
cluded that part of the variance may be traceable to a change in the 
experts' structure of perception and evaluation. With regard to the 
UH and AH interactions, the results can be summarized as follows: 



40 



The educational experts access the teaching performance of 
the student teachers who received traditional tutoring on the 
occasion of lesson 1 to be approximately the same as the 
teaching performance of those who did not receive this treat- 
ment. On the other hand, the student teachers who received no 
tutoring were judged to be less proficient in their teaching in 
lesson 2 than those who were given this treatment. 
On the question of the behavior of the pupils towards one 
another, their behavior with the student teachers who received 
traditional tutorship was significantly more disciplined than with 
those who had not. 



Implications, based on these 



iult 



1. The tutor has had a positive influence on the behavior of the 
student teachers. 

2. Traditional tutorship requires the presence of the tutor in the 
classroom, which could have had the effect of subduing the 
activity of the pupils (cf. 1:3 above). 

4:4 Results: Student teachers' self-assessment and educational experts' 
assessments 

The majority of the significant interaction effects also fulfil our 
requirements for an effect sisc. Both the effect size of (l) the ATH 
interaction within the ego-pupil relation and (2) the AUT interaction 
within the ego-NPO relation fulfil these requirements for the ego 
dimension. For the pupil dimension the requirements are fulfilled by: 
(l) the UK interaction within the pupil-pupil relation, (2) the ATH 
interaction within the pupil-NPO relation, and (3) the AUTI interac- 
tion within the pupil-NPO relation. Hence the objectivity of the 
student teachers' self-assessment seems to vary significantly in 
the following respects: Externally mediated self- confrontation via 
CCTV/VR has led to significant deviations within the ego-NPO rela- 
tion, while traditional tutoring has led to demonstrable deviations 
within the pupil dimension (variable domains 4, 5, and 6). 

Implications, based on these results 

1. The deviation in the objectivity of the student teachers' assess- 
ment of the ego-NPO relation increases for both groups from 



- 41 



3. 



micro-lesson 1 to micro-lesson 2. The simple effects are not 
significant, however. The results imply that the student teachers 
expected an improvement in their teaching method in lesson 2, 
and that this expectation v/as felt to be born out irrespective of 
the actual l: objective" state of affairs. On the other hand, the 
student teachers in the group not having externally mediated 
self- confrontation via CCTV/VR, have not had the same 
opportunity of seeing their expectations confirmed in the TV 
monitor 

The deviation in the objectivity of the student teachers' assess- 
ment of the pupil-pupil relation shows for both groups an in 
crease in the second lesson. If the comments of the tutor are 
the source of this increase, there seems to be a disagreement 
in outlook between the tutor and the panel of experts. 
The deviation in the objectivity of the perception of the pupil- 
-NPO relation by the student teachers receiving traditional 
tutoring decreases, while that of those not receiving this treat- 
ment increases. For the deviations in evaluation the opposite 
is the case. One possible explanation could be that the TV moni- 
tor has had a standardising effect on perception, while self-con^r 
frontation via the CCTV/VR technique has led to greater devia- 
tion in evaluation. The simple effects, however, arc not signi- 
ficant within the pupil -NPO relation. 



To summarize . The account of the results given above shows that the 
experimental conditions have not on the whole led to main effects that 
are significant on the chosen level of significance or that can be regar- 
ded as constituting a conclusive basis for interpretation. Taking the 
third analysis of results into account, this means that there are no 
deviations in the objectivity of the student teachers' self-assessment 
as a consequence of either traditional tutoring or externally mediated 
self -confrontation via CCTV/VR. 

On the other hand, examination of the interaction between the ex- 
perimental conditions and the other sources of variation included in the 
analysis of variance has produced a. number of significant effects that 
fulfil our criteria for interpretation. 



42 - 



The interaction effects that have been examined more closely imply, 
for example, that traditional tutorship in the form of dyadic confronta- 
tion (Factor H) in combination with perception and evaluation (Factor A) 
and/or teaching occasion (Factor U) has led to changes in the pupil di- 
mension (variable domains 4-6). This result has emerged in both the 
student teachers' self-assessment and in the average assessment of the 
experts. 

On the other hand, analysis 1 and 3 show that externally mediated 
self-con.fronta.tion via CCTV/VR. (Factor T) in combination with percep- 
tion and evaluation (Factor A) and/or teaching occasion (Factor U) has 
led to changes within the ego dimension (variable domain 3). 

A closer examination of the observation differences between the 
student teachers and the experts has shown a similar pattern in the 
interaction effects. The result produced in the third part of the analysis 
implies that traditional tutoring within the ego dimension has led to 
increased agreement in the perception of the student teachers and the 
experts and to an increased difference in their evaluation. For exter- 
nally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR, the results for micro- 
-lesson 2 indicate an increase in the differences between the student 
teachers' and the experts' perception and evaluation. 



4. 2 Analysis of structure 

In order that we might study the structural connection between the 
student teachers' self-assessment and the experts' assessments (ave- 
rage assessment), the data were treated by means of canonical corre- 
lation analysis (cf. e.g. Tatsuoka, 1971). This technique indicates: 

1. whether both sets of data are demonstrably related to one another, 
and 

2. the way in which these sets of variables can be combined so that 
the correlation between the components is at a maximum. 

If, as in the present study, it is a question of examining two rela- 
tively large sets of variables from the point of view of their interrela- 
tionship, then one is primarily interested in a few linear combinations 
in each group. The variable combinations with the highest correlations 
are examined fir3t. Moreover, the model means that the structure can 
as a rule be described almost completely by the first canonical variab- 
les, i.e. with a few uncorrelatcd linear combinations. In other words, 



43 - 




the model leads to the relation between the .two sets of variables being 
reduced to its simplest form. For that reason, the method seems to be 
particularly suitable for use in explorative studies. For. a more detailed 
discussion and description of the method, see Bierschenk, 1972 f, part 
4, Chs. 28 and 29. 

The canonical analysis has been carried out in three stages: 

1. the material was examined to find out if there were any significant 
bivariate relations at all, 

2. then the way in which the different variables have contributed to the 
relation in question was examined, and 

3. finally an attempt was made to give these correlations a meaningful 
content. 

Step 1 showed that there are significantly correlated dimensions or common 
structures in the student teachers'' and educational experts' observation data, 
which are summarized in Table 5. 

Table 5. Number of significant canonical relations (R ) for perception 
(a, ) and evaluation (a„) 



Variable domain 



Micro-lesson 1 
a i a 2 



Micro-lesson 2 



1. Ego-ego relation 

2. Ego -pupil relation 

3. Ego-NPO relation 

4. Pupil -ego relation 

5. Pupil -pupil relation 

6. Pupil-NPO relation 



i 
i 
2 
1 
] 




.1 


1 

















I 





1 











]. 






1 



As can be seen in the table, the analysis has shown nine significant corre- 
lated dimensions in the perception structure, while only three correlations 
have become significant for the evaluation structure. It is obviously easier 
to achieve a common structure for perception than for evaluation. But for 
the second lesson, the perception structure shows fewer interrelated dimen- 
sions. 

Step 2 showed that the weights in the individual dimensions have not on the 
whole fulfilled the agreement criteria. Thus no common interpretable index 
can be constructed for either the perception or the evaluation. 

S tep 3 showed that the weights within each individual dimension have 
resulted in different signs, and for that reason no separate and interpretable 
expert or student teacher indexes could be constructed. 



- 44 



The coefficients for the significant correlations are given in Appendix 4, 
in order that the interested reader may examine the relative position of the 
variables within the individual vectors. 

Implications 

The results of the canonical analyses carried out on the observation data of 
the educational experts and student teachers show that there are significant- 
ly correlated dimensions in the experts' and student teachers' perception 
and evaluation. As Cooley and Lohnes (1971, p. 169) point out geometically 
the canonical correlation can be interpreted as a measure of the extent to 
which people occupy the same relative positions in the test space of the 
first set of variables as they do in the test space of the second set. 

Since we are concerned with the relationships between the student 
teachers' and the pedagogical experts' perception and evaluation respective- 
ly, the results in Table 5 show that similarities are evident in the percep- 
tion area. Y/ith respect to the evaluation area, however, there are only 
three significantly correlated dimensions. This result indicates that there 
is little association between the student teachers' and the pedagogical ex- 
perts evaluation. One consequence of the dissimilarities in structure may 
be that tutors and student teachers run a considerable risk of misunder- 
standing one another when they try to discuss separate components of a 
more complex teaching process. 

As far as the research method is concerned, difficulties have also 
arisen in applying this model to the data in question. Some of the problems 
are discussed in Bicrschenk (1972 c). Another possible approach, which 
might be more suitable for this particular type of problem, is the develop- 
ment of the canonical correlation analysis model into a hypothesis -testing 
model, where one only decides upon one weight vector (paired components 
get the same weights) and then calculates the correlations. 



AT, 



5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOP. FURTHER 



SEARCH 



The results and implications presented above are based on evaluation of 
only one part of the observation data which have been collected in connec- 
tion with the experiment described in Bierschenk (1972 f, Cli. 5). In this 
context the recommendations can be divided into two classes: 

(1) general recommendations for further research that can be based on the 
results and experiences gained during the experiment, and 

(2) recommendations for further analysis, i.e. a study of questions that 
are stated in the project's original formulation of the problem, and for 
which the author has already collected data. 

5. 1 General recommendations 

On the basis of the results of this experiment which have been presented 
and discussed in a summarised form in this report, the following can be 
stated: 

1 . The teaching staff at the Malmo Gchool of Education, the student 
teachers training as grade 4-6 teachers who did not take part in the 
experiment, and the subjects of the experiment have all experienced 
and evaluated the experiment and thereby externally mediated self- 

- confrontation via CCTV/VR as being "of importance" for teacher 
training. In addition, the subjects consider self- confrontation via the 
CCTV/VR technique to be "important" for personality development (one 
of the goals of teacher training). This result is a positive evaluation of 
both the medium, and the technique of self- confrontation. 

It must be considered an extremely important goal for future teacher 
training to give the student teachers the opportunity of studying and ex- 
perimenting with their own behavior under systematic and controlled 
conditions in order to be able to develop different teacher roles and to 
follow the development of the teaching process. 

2. In order to be able to improve the opportunities for research and further 
investigations into the dimensions which have been studied, the establish- 
ment of " Micro -Lesson Laboratories" (MLL) is recommended. MLL 
would make possible both individualization and an increased number of 
training lessons. 

As has been made clear in the results presented above, the inter- 
action of the experimental conditions (T, H) with the lesson occasions 



46 






(U) resulted in significant and interpretable effects. On the basis of 
these results, it can be implied that a longer experimental period and 
more lessons might very well produce a more definite result. If the 
student teachers were allowed to give a training lesson regularly, every 
week for example, it would be possible to make a controlled examina- 
tion of a greater number of variables in the teaching process than the 
present experiment has permitted. 

The development of an MLL system would also facilitate a systematic 
training of student teachers (and other categories of people) in receiving 
and processing first-hand information, i. e. non-verbally mediated 
"self "-information. The experimental data imply that micro-lessons, 
mediated via the CCTV/VR technique, tend to standardize the percep- 
tion of student teachers and educational experts. 

MLL should be equipped with a sufficiently large number of video - 
recorders and video-tapes to make it possible to store video -recorded 
micro-lessons for a fairly long period of time. This storage would 
enable student teachers to re-assess regularly the teaching process in 
question. The experimental data imply that the student teachers who 
are given the opportunity of seeing their own lessons via CCTV/VR 
change their evaluation structure. Being able to get the jorocess of 
evaluation under systematic control must surely be a very essential 
goal for teacher training in the future. 

The results of the structure analyses imply that it is important to in- 
vestigate in more detail the process of evaluation. A study of the deve- 
lopment of the student teachers' perception and evaluation structures 
should be placed in the centre of future research into CCTV/VR tech- 
niques, primarily because the null hypothesis for the main effects in 
the experimental factors has been accepted. 

A further study should be made of the effects of the tutoring process on 
student teachers, since it is not possible to establish within the frame- 
work of the experiment whether the observed effects depend simply 
upon the presence of the tutor in the classroom or upon the influence 
of the dyadic confrontation. 

Some experimental results appear to confirm the hypothesis that the 
expectations of the student teachers direct what is observed in a 
teaching situation and that these expectations via the TV screen are 
felt to be corroborated whatever the actual "objective" state of affairs 



47 



is. Keeping this in mind, a closer examination should be made of the 
degree to which the student teachers'' predispositions influence the pro- 
cesses of both perception and evaluation. (The author has data available 
for study of this question. ) 

8. In order to increase the validity of the measuring instrument, follow-up 
studies are needed and an extension of the experiment to schools outside 
the School of Education. 

9. The tutor in the experiment has been one lecturer in Methodology. In 
addition he has a particular interest in educational psychology and can- 
not, therefore, be regarded as being quite representative of the body of 
lecturers as a whole. Thus no generalizations should be made from, the 
experimental data as far as lecturers in teaching method are concerned. 
The way in which MLL techniques could be integrated into the School of 
Education's courses in teaching method requires further studies. 

10. Systematic and controlled studies of personality-psychological and so- 
cial-psychological dimensions in the teaching process require not only 
new approaches in research method such as the micro -teaching techni- 
ques and the CCTV/VR system, but also new approaches in psychome- 
trics, such as the development of statistical -mathematical models that 
can deal with complex problems. As is implied in the discussion of the 
separate parts of the analysis of results, the best experimental design 
and new methods of observation arc of little use if the statistical ana- 
lyses are unsuitable. Thus work is needed here on the development of 
new evaluation methods. 

5. 2 Continued tasks of analysis 

The experiment presented above is exploratory, which means that a sizable 
amount of data has been collected in order that the problem might be studied 
from several different aspects. 

The analysis of the data was primarily based on the assessment and 
evaluation schedule F III. But the test evaluation and coding work have also 
been completed for all the other data. These data have been stored on magne- 
tic tape, ready for continued analysis. A few examples of such tasks of ana- 
lysis are given below: 

1 . Analysis of student teachers' comments 

The comments made by the student teachers during the process of self- con- 
frontation were recorded on tape and then worked over in an analysis of con- 






tent. The coder agreement in coding the physical units, e.g. information 
units, has been checked. 

After this check, recordings were made of both simultaneous comments 
and comments made during dyadic confrontation, i. e. what the student 
teachers and the tutor said during the traditional tutoring. These data have 
been treated by means of frequency statistics. One of the aims of the evalua- 
tion is to examine to what extent the cognition is (1) ego-centered, (2) pupil - 
-centered and (3) topic-centered. 

In addition, the analysis of the tutoring comments permits a more syste- 
matic examination of the dyadic process of confrontation. The tutor plays a 
central role in teacher training, and for that reason a more detailed analysis 
of the pattern of "face-to-face" communication is an important research 
task. 

2. Analysis of the student teachers" reactions to repeated confrontations 
with one and the same micro -lesson 

Assuming that repeated confrontation experiences with a single video-recor- 
ded lesson should influence the student teachers' perception and evaluation 
of the teaching process, their micro-lessons have been played back to them 
three times. The analysis carried out on the assessment and evaluation 
schedule F III has resulted in an ANOVA, the examination of which is not 
yet fully completed, however. 

3. Long-term follow-up of student teachers' self-assessment 

At the end of their second term at the School of Education (si:: weeks after 
the completion of the experiment) and at the end of their period of training 
at the School (sixth term), the student teachers have been asked to assess 
once again the micro -lessons video-recorded during the experiment. The 
test evaluation and coding work have been completed. In addition, these data 
are stored on magnetic tape. An analysis of these data would aim at studying 
the extent to which the teacher training has had any effect on the student 
teachers' perception and evaluation of the micro-lessons video-recorded 
during the second term. 

4. Analysis of measuring instrument 

The assessment and evaluation schedule F III has been the main instrument 
in the experiment but this, like some other schedules included in the group- 
test battery, is a new construction developed especially for this experiment. 



49 



To enable the construct validity of the instrument to be studied, a scries of 
factor analyses (cf. Bierschenk, 1972 f, Ch. 10) have been carried out for 
both schedule F III and schedule F II (Identification experiences). As far 
as schedule F III is concerned, the analytical work has been completed, but 
it has not yet been reported. An evaluation of schedule F II, e. g. through 
correlational studies, is also an important task if one wishes to study per- 
ception and evaluation tendencies specific for one individual. 

5. Analysis of the influence of student teachers'' predispositions on their 
perception and evaluation of teaching processes mediated via video- 
recording 

One interpretation of the results presented above has been that the indivi- 
dual s degree of satisfaction with his own performance before seeing the 
recording decides to some extent what he will observe on the TV screen, 
in what way he will evaluate it and what changes it will cause in his attitude. 

The analyses of results presented above have been carried out with a 
view to discovering possible differences between the experimental groups. 
They imply that one also ought to carry out analyses on the level of the in- 
dividual, e.g. an analysis of the connection between the experimental re- 
sults and different personality variables. A group-test battery was admi- 
nistered (cf. Bierschenk, 1972 f, Ch. 8. 2. 6) for the purpose of showing 
to what extent the student teachers' perception and evaluation of their own 
teaching was directed or influenced by the individual's (1) cognitive ability, 
(2) ability to maintain emotional balance, (3) access to adequate social be- 
havior, (4) ability to use pupil-adapted (concrete) language, (5) ability to 
stimulate and control the teaching process, (6) ability to maintain opinions 
despite different types of provocation, (7) ability to achieve an integrative 
behavior, (G) ability to accept himself and others. (9) ability to make per- 
ceptual analysis, and (10) ability to maintain a high level of energy and 
attention. 

The evaluation and coding of separate tests and schedules included in 
this battery have been completed and these data are stored on magnetic tape. 



50 



6. REFERENCES 



Bierschenk, B. Television as a technical aid in education and in educa- 
tional and psychological research: A bibliography. Didakometry , 
No. 24, 1969. 

Bierschenk, B. Att mata subjekt-objekt-relationer i externt formedlade 
sjalvkonfrontationsprocesser via intern television: Presentation av 
ett kategori system. Testkonstruktion och testdata , Nr 6, 1971. (a.) 

Bierschenk, B. Television as a technical aid in education and in educa- 
tional and psychological research: A bibliography (continued). 
Didakometry , No. 29, 1971. (b) 

Bierschenk, B. Television as a technical aid in education and in educa- 
tional and psychological research: A bibliographic account of German 
literature. Didakometry , No. 31, 1971. (c) 

Bierschenk, B. Television som tekniskt hjalpmedel i utbildning och peda- 
gogisk-psykologisk forskning: En bibliografi. Pedagogisk dokumenta - 
tion, Nr 2, 1971. (d) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbildningen: 
Bakgrund, experiment, experimentupplevelse. Pedagogisk-psykolo- 
giska problem, Nr 154, 1971. (c) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbild- 
ningen: Analyser av lararkandidater s sjalvbedomning. Pedagogisk- 
psykologiska problem , Nr 160, 1972. (a) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbild- 
ningen: Analyser av pedagogiska experters bedomningar. Pedagogisk- 
psykologiska problem., Nr 164, 1972. (b) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbild- 
ningen: Analyser av lararkandidater s sjalvbedomning och pedagogiska 
experters bedomningar. Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem , Nr 165, 
1972. (c) 

Bierschenk, B. Att mata subjekt-objekt-relationer i externt formedlade 
sjalvkonfrontationsprocesser via intern television: Presentation av 
ett kategorisystem. Testkonstruktion och testdata , Nr 6 (rev. uppl. ), 
1972. (d) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbildningen. 
Test och Testdata. Testkonstruktion och testdata . Nr 12, 1972. (e) 

Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbild- 
ningen. (Studia Psycholog. et Pedag. , 18) Lund: Cleerup, 1972. (f) 

Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J . C. Experimental and qua si --experimental 
design for research on teaching. In: Gage, N. L. (Ed. ) Handbook 
of research on teaching . Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally, 1963, pp. 
171-246. 

Cohen, J. Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. 
New York: Academic Press, 1969. 

Gerbner, G. m. fl. (Eds.) The analysis of communication content. Deve- 
lopments in scientific theories and computer techniques . New York: 
Wiley, 1969. 




51 



Hays, W.L. Statistics . New York: Holt, 1970. 

Perlmutter , M.S. et al. Family diagnosis and therapy using videotape 
playback. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry , 1967, 37, 900-905. 

Stickell, B. \7 . A critical review of the methodology and results of 

research comparing televised and face-to-face instruction . Philadelphia, 
Pa. : Pennsylvania State University, 1963. (Mimeographed doctoral 
theses, Microfilms, 64-1419.) 

Stoller, F.II. Therapeutic concepts reconsidered in light of videotape 
experience. Comparative Group Studies , 1970, 1 (2), 5-12. 

Tatsuoka, 1/1. M. Multivariate analysis . New York: Wiley, 1971. 




APPENDICES 



7. 1 Appendix 1, 
7. 2 Appendix 2. 

7. 3 Appendix 3. 



7. 4 Appendix 4. 



The assessment and evaluation schedule F III. 

Assessments of the reliability of perception 
and evaluation of the student teachers and the 
educational experts. 

Self-assessments and assessments by educa- 
tional experts. 

Mean values and standard deviations for the 
variables included in the assessment and eva- 
luation schedule F III. 

Canonical correlations and coefficients for the 
variable domains 1-6. 



7. 1 Appendix 1. The assessment and evaluation schedule F III, 









T 



Project: ITV/Sj/F III 

SURNAME: 

Sect. 



CHRISTIAN NAME; 



Date: 



Occasion of 

assessment: 



READ THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY 1 



INSTRUCTIONS 



On the pages that follow you are to assess a series of occurence that can 
be observed during a lesson. 

THE ASSESSMENT YOU MAKE SHOULD BE WHAT OCCURS TO YOU 
SPONTANEOUSLY AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU OBSERVE YOURSELF. 

You are only to assess what occurs during YOUR lesson. It is not a 
question of how you assess such occurrences in general. 

A number of statements now follow. You should indicate your attitude to 
them by drawing a ring around the number that most closely corresponds 
to what ypu feel about these statements. 

Do not be afraid to make use of the whole scale. 

You should then indicate how CERTAIN or UNCERTAIN you are in your 
assessment by drawing a ring around the letter a or b in the column marked 
"The ASSESSMENT is". 



Example 



The ASSESSMENT is 



1 a) 


During this lesson 1 assess my handwriting 
to be 




, — — — < 




i (T) 3 4 5 6 7 




b 


rather certain 




very easy v — -' very difficult 
to read to read 


very uncertain 


b) 


I assess having handwriting that is very easy 
to read during this lesson to be 








12 3 4 5 6 (T\ 


:0 

: b 


rather certain 




very Vempletely 
important unimportant 


very uncertain 

, , 



The description beneath the line applies only to the terminal points of the line. 

NB. 

1. Do not be afraid to use the whole scale. 

2. You are only to assess what occurs during YOUR lesson. 

3. You are to make two indications. 



A. ASSESSMENT OF MYSELF 



I. My emotional reactions 


The 


ASSESSMENT is j 

.. ..{ 


i 


a) 


During this lesson 1 assess myself as being 




! 

s 

! 
I 






1 


2 3 4 5 6 7 \ 


a 


rather certain 






very tense 


very ! 
relaxed 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


This tension affects my teaching during 




i 






this lesson 






i 






1 


2 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very 

positively 


very 
negatively 


b 


very uncertain 

i 


2 


a) 


During this lesson I assess my manner a.s 




( 






being 












4 

1 


2 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very 
unassured 


very 
assured 


b 


very uncertain 

i 




b) 


I assess the 
lesson to be 


need to be assured during this 










1 


2 3 4 5 6 7 


a 
b 


rather certain 

j 

very uncertain 

j 




completely 
unimportant 


very 
important 


3 


a) 


I assess my 
being 


teaching during this lesson as 




i 
j 

t 
1 






i 


2 3 4 5 6 7 


a 
b 


rather certain 
very uncertain 


very varied very monoto- 
for the students novis for the 








students 








b) 


I assess the 


need for the teaching to be varied 


i — — 








for the students during this lesson to be 










1 


2 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 
! b 
i 


rather certain 
very uncertain 


very 

important 


completely 
unimportant 





I. My emotional reactions 


The ASSESSMENT is 


4 a) 


I assess my patience with the students 
during this lesson as being 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




very great very little 


b 


very uncertain 


b) 


I assess having patience with the students 
during this lesson to be 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 


5 a) 


I assess my sense of humor during this 
lesson as being 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 


[ b) 

! 


I assess having a sense of humor during this 
les-son to be 






| 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 


: 


completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 


6 a) 


I assess that during this lesson the TV studio 
affects my way of teaching 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




to a very to a very 
little extent great extent 


b 


very uncertain 


b) 


I assess that during this lesson the effect of 
the TV studio makes me 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


< a 


rather certain 




very un- very 
assured assured 


; b 


very uncertain 


c) 


I assess the fact that the TV studio affects my 
way of teaching during this lesson to be 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


I a 


rather certain 




completely very 
undistressing distressing 


i b 


very uncertain 


d) 


During this lesson I assess the effect of the 
TV studio to be 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 


rather certain 




very very 
inhibiting stimulating 


I b 


very uncertain 



II. Voice, vocal pitch 



7 a) I assess my voice during this lesson as being 

12 3 4 5 6 7 

very 



monotonous 



very 
varied 



The ASSESSMENT is 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



b) I assess my ability to vary my voice during 
this lesson to be 



very 
important 



4 



completely 

unimportant 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



8 a) I assess that during this lesson 1 speak 

12 3 4 5 6 7 

very 



indistinctly 



very 
distinctly 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



b) I assess speaking distinctly during this lesson 
to be 



very 
important 



6 7 



completely 
unimportant 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



9 a) During this lesson I speak to the students 
12 3 4 5 6 7 



very quietly 



very loudly 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



b) I assess the pitch of my voice during th.i: 
lesson to be 



2 3 



6 7 



very 
important 



completely 

unimportant 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



III. Movements 



The ASSESSMENT is 



10 a) I assess my movements during this 
lesson as being 

12 3 4 5 6 7 



very slow- 



very fast 



a rather certain 

b very uncertain 



b) I assess the speed of my movements during 
this lesson as being 



I 



( 



too slow 



too fast 



a rather certain 

b very uncertain 






c) I assess the speed of my movements during 
this lesson to be 



i 



completely 

unimportant 



very 
important 



a rather certain 
b very uncertain 



III. Movements 


The ASSESSMENT is 


11 


a) 


During this lesson I move about 






1 




12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 


; 
i 




all the time never 

t 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess moving about during this lesson to be 




• 






12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 


12 


a) 


During this lesson my posture is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess my posture during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


13 


a) 


During this lesson I have nervous tics, 
twitches etc. 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






on no on many 
occasion occasions 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess having nervous tics and twitches 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


14 


a) 


During this lesson I gesticulate 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very much very little 

i 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess gesticulating during this lesson to be 











12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess my gesticulation during this lesson 
as being 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 



IE. Movements J The ASSESSMENT is 


15 a) During this lesson I fiddle with something | 
(e.g. my ring, my glasses etc.) 

1234567 » a rather certain 

all the time never ■ , , . 

i b very uncertain 


b) I assess that my fiddling with something 

during this lesson is • 

1234567 5a rather certain 

very distressing completely un- [ , . . 
* -. it *. * *. -• a. . * h very uncertain 

for the students distressing for ' ' 

the students • 


IV. Knowledge | The ASSESSMENT is 


16 a) During this lesson I assess my knowledge of 

facts as being ! 

1234567 Ja rather certain 

very good very ! . 

* , ,. . ! b very uncertain 

deficient i. 7 


b) I assess having factual knowledge during' 

this lesson to be « 

1234567 ! a rather certain 

very completely \ , 

' , ••*..» h very uncertain 
important unimportant | 7 


V. Ability to express myself ' The ASSESSMENT is 


17 a) During this lesson I explain and describe J 
things for the students 

1234567 • a rather certain 

very well very badly J , 

* *» - ' j b very uncertain 


b) I assess explaining and describing things for 
the students during this lesson to be 

1234567 Ja rather certain 

completely very • , 

_._. * , ' . » b very uncertain 

unimportant important ■ 7 


18 a) During this lesson I use stereotyped expressions \ 
/frequently repeated but unnecessary expressions J 
(e. g. "Shall we. . , " "or . . . . or. . . . ")/ 

1234 5 6? ia rather certain 

ail the time never ! , 

| b very uncertain 

b) I assess the use of stereotyped expressions (fre- i 

quently repeated but unnecessary expressions) i 

to be \ 

123 4 567 Ja rather certain 

very completely ' . 

j- 0+ ._ t „ - „ ,.. . • L very uncertain 

distressing undistressxng • J 



V. Ability to express myself , 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


19 


a) 


During .this lesson I use incomplete jentences 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I'assess my use of incomplete sentences during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


20 


a) 


During this lesson I use expressions that are 
linguistically incorrect 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess my use of linguistically incorrect 
expressions during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


21 


a) 


During this lesson I speak 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






without with a very 
dialect noticeable 


b 


very uncertain 






dialect 








b) 


I assess that for myself my speaking dialect 
during this lesson is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess that for the students my speaking dia- 
lect during this lesson is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


22 


a) 


During this lesson I use difficult words /with- 
out explaining them (e. g. technical terms, 
specific expressions etc.)/ 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


! b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess that for the students the use of diffi- 
cult words (without explanation) during this 
lesson is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
instructive meaningless 


b 


very uncertain 








V. Ability to express myself 


The ASSESSMENT is 


23 a) 


During this lesson it occurs that I suffer black- 
outs, i. e. do not really know how to continue 








or what to say. 








12.34567 


a 


rather certain 




all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 


b) 


I assess that suffering black-outs during this 
lesson is 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




very distressing completely 
for me undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 




for me 







B. ASSESSMENT OF THE BEHAVIOR OF THE STUDENTS 
TOWARDS ME AND TOWARDS EACH OTHER 



I. My way of conducting the class ' The ASSESSMENT is 


24 a) I assess that during this lesson I control the t 
students J 

1234567 Ja rather certain 

very rigidly very loosely ! , 

J ° ' 7 ' ' b very uncertain 

b) I assess the need to control the students during \ 
this lesson as being J 

1234567 'a rather certain 

completely very i , 

. r , ' , } ib very uncertain 
unimportant important t 


25 a) During this lesson I help the students ' 

1234567 !a rather certain 

all the time never [ , , . 

; b very uncertain 


b) I assess the need to give the students a lot of < 
help during this lesson to be ■ 

1234567 ja rather certain 

completely very ! , 

. r . ' , J . b very uncertain 
unimportant important ' * 


26 a) During this lesson I nod at the student who i 
is to answer J 

1234567 Ja rather certain 

all the time never ' , 

• b very uncertain 


b) I assess nodding at the student who is to an- \ 
swer during this lesson to be J 

1234567 ia rather certain 

very very i , 

7 . } . , b very uncertain 
impersonal personal , ' 




I. My way of conducting the class 


The ASSESSMENT is 


27 


a) 


During this lesson I point at the student who is 
to answer 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess pointing at the student who is to answer 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very very 
impersonal personal 


b 


very uncertain 


28 


a) 


During this lesson I say mm, good, fine or I 
nod in confirmation of the student's answer 






1 




12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the use of such confirmation during 
this lesson to be 




i 






12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


29 


a) 


During this lesson I speak to the students 
without looking at them 






■. 




12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 


\ 
! 


b) 


I assess looking at the students when I speak 
to them during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 


30 


a) 


During this lesson I address myself to the 
class as a whole when I speak 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess addressing myself to the class as a 
whole when I speak during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 












I. My way of conducting the class 


The ASSESSMENT is 


31 


a) 


During this lesson I interrupt the students 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess interrupting the students during this 
lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very foolish very wise 


b 


very uncertain 


32 


a) 


I assess my ability to maintain my position in 
relation to the students, i. e. not in every 
respect to feel and act in the same way as the 
students, to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess maintaining one's position in relation 
to the students, i. e. not in every respect 
feeling and acting in the same way as the 
students, to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very very 
positive negative 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess maintaining one's position in relation 
to the students, i. e. not in every respect 
feeling and acting in the same way as the 
students, to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


33 


a) 


During this lesson the time I allow for the 
students to answer is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






too long too short 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the amount of time allowed for the 
students to answer to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 



I. My way of conducting the class . 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


34 


a) 


During this lesson I favor some students 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time ne er 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess favoring some students during this 
lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very very 
negative positive 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess favoring some students during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


35 


a) 


During this lesson I get the students to work 
(i. e. not only group -work) 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very very 
independently dependently 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess independent work by the students 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 

i 


II. The attention I pay to certain types of students 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


36 


a) 


During this lesson I direct my attention 
mostly towards 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






active passive 
students students 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the division of attention between 
students acting actively or passively during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


' a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


! b 


very uncertain 


37 


a) 


During this lesson I pay attention to the 
students acting passively 










12 3 4 5 6/ 


! a 


rather certain 




b) 


very often very seldom 


! b 


very uncertain 


I assess paying attention to the students 










acting passively during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 







III, My contact with the students 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


38 


a) 


During this lesson my contact with the 
students is 










■ 12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 

t 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess making contact with the students 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


IV. Disciplinary measures 


The ASSESSMENT is 


39 


a) 


During this lesson the class is restless 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the class is restless 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


40 


a) 


During this lesson the students speak 
at the same time 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain j 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students speak 
at the same time to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


V. The behavior of the students towards me 


The ASSESSMENT is 


41 


a) 


During this lesson the students make negative 
comments about me (e. g. the bitch, she's 
nuts etc. ) 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students make nega- 
tive comments about me during the lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very , completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 



V. The behavior of the students towards me 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


42 


a) 


During this lesson the students comment on 
my manner 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students make com- 
ments on my manner during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


43 


a) 


During this lesson the students comment on 
the way I am dressed 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students comment 
on the way I am dressed to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


44 


a) 


During this lesson the students follow my 
instructions 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 




• 


i never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the students' following my instruc- 
tions during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


45 


a) 


During this lesson the students mimic me 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students mimic me 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


I a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


> b 

i 

i 


very uncertain 

i 



V. The behavior of the students towards me 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


46 


a) 


During this lesson the students make faces at me 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I' assess the fact that the students make faces 
at me during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


47 


a) 


During this lesson the students contradict me 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students contradict 
me during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


i 


c) 


I assess that the fact that the students contra- 
dict me during this lesson makes the work 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 


i 

I 

j 


■ 


much more much 
difficult easier 


b 


very uncertain 


VI. The contact between the students 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


48 


a) 


During this lesson the students talk to each 
other about things outside the subject 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students talk- to each 
other about things outside the subject during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


49 


a) 


During this lesson the students distract 
each other 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students distract 
each other during this lesson as being 


r 








12 3 4 5 6 7 


i a 


rather certain 






very completely 
distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 

1 







VII. Assessment of the students' psychophysical ' 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 






state 






50 


a) 


I assess the students in general as being 
during this lesson 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very relaxed very tense 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


During this lesson I assess this tension in 
the students to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 

distressing undistressing 


b 


very uncertain 


51 


a) 


I assess the students' ability to concentrate 
during this lesson as being 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students are concentra- 
ted during rny lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


52 


a) 


During this lesson the ability of the students 
to work independently is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the ability of the students to work 
independently during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 






VIII. Assessment of the students"' intellectual 


The ASSESSMENT is 






ac tiyity 






53 


a) 


During this lesson the students discuss to- 
gether the subject being taught 










12 3 4 5 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students discuss to- 
gether the subject being treated as being 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 













VIII. Assessment of the students' intellectual i 


r 


e ASSESSMENT is 1 






activity i 






54 


a) 


During this lesson the students ask me questions ] 
on the subject being taught i 










12 3 4 5 6 7 1 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students ask me 
questions on the subject being taught to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


55 


a) 


During this lesson the students ask questions 
outside the subject area I am teaching at that 
moment 




. 






12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the fact that the students ask questions 
outside the subject to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess the fact that the students ask questions 
outside the subject as being 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


56 


a) 


During this lesson the students draw conclusions 
that are most often 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely completely 
correct incorrect 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the ability of the students to draw 
conclusions during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


' a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


! b 


very uncertain 


57 


a) 


During this lesson I assess the students' 
interest in the subject to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


' a 


rather certain 






very little very great 


1 b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the amount of interest in the subject 
shown by th students during this lc 3 son to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


! a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


1 b 


very uncertain 

_ x_ 



VIII. Assessment of the students' intellectual The ASSESSMENT is 
* activity 


58 a) During this lesson the students answer questions ! 
on the subject differently than I had intended J 

12 3 4 5 6 7 a rather certain 
all the time never , b very mcertain 


b) I assess the fact that the students answer J 
questions on the subject differently than I « 
had intended during this lesson to be i 

1234567 | a rather certain 
completely very ' b ve uncertain 
undistressing distressing ' 

' ,„. 






C. THE WAY IN WHICH I PLAN MY TEACHING 



I. Assessment of the requirements for planning The ASSESSMENT is 
a lesson > 


59 a) Prior to this lesson I have estimated the I 
students' previous knowledge 

1234567 i a rather certain 
very badly very well j b vgry uncertain 


b) I assess estimation of the students' previous j 
knowledge uefore the lesson to be < 

12 3 4 5 6 7 j a rather certain 
completely very j b ve certain 
unimportant important 


60 a) During this lesson I present the material in \ 
such a way that the students can associate \ 
to earlier experiences and knowledge | 

1234567 ia rather certain 
v^y well very badly j b very uncertain 


b) I assess presenting the material in such a way 

that the students can associate to earlier experi- i 
ences and knowledge during this lesson to be < 

1234567 J a rather certain 

completely very ' , 

, ^ ? i i ' D very uncertain 

unimportant important » 



II. The structure of the planning 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


61 


a) 


I assess my rough plan for this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very bad very good 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess having a rough plan for this lesson 
to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


. b 


very uncertain 

i 


62 


a) 


I assess my detailed plan for this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very good very bad 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess having a detailed plan for this 
lesson to be 




t 






12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






cpmpletely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 






III. Teaching aids 


The ASSESSMENT is 


63 


a) 


During this lesson I make use of teaching 
aids 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


During this lesson I make use of teaching aids 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


: a 


rather certain 






very very 
suitable unsuitable 


b 


very uncertain 




c) 


I assess the use of teaching aids during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


1 a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


1 b 


very uncertain 






IV. Use of the blackboard 


The 


ASSESSMENT is 


64 


a) 


During this lesson I make use of th<- blackboard 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess using the blackboard during this 
lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 


; 




very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


65 


a) 


The lay-out of what 1 write on the blackboard 
during this lesson is 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very bad very good 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the lay-out of what I write on the 
blackboard during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 


66 


a) 


During this lesson I assess my handwriting 
on the blackboard to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very clear very unclear 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the clarity of my handwriting during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 






V. Follow-up of the methodological steps 


The ASSESSMENT is 


67 


a) 


I assess my presentation of the subject 
during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very unclear very clear 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess the way in which I present the 
subject to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
unimportant important 


b 


very uncertain 

. ■...,.*• ■■ 




V. Follow-up of the methodological steps [ The ASSESSMENT is 


68 a) During this lesson my teaciiing is .• • 

1234567 !a rather certain 
extremely extremely de- J , . 
full of facts ficient in facts J . 


b) I assess having plenty of facts in my teaching i 
during this lesson to be ! 

1234567 a rather certain 

completely very ' , 

• ^ ' ' > b very uncertain l 
unimportant important f ' 


69 a) During this lesson I assess my way of associat- J 
ing to the students' previous knowledge to be f 

1234567 ia rather certain 

very bad very good ', , . . 
1 3 & ; b very uncertain 

__, i 


b) I assess being able to associate to the students' ' 
previous knowledge during this lesson to be i 

1234567 | a rather certain 

very completely ! , 

. > * . . . *. *. b very uncertain 

important unimportant ' 


70 a) During this lesson I make unnecessary J 
digressions from the subject | 

1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 'a rather certain 

never all the time i , . . 

i b very uncertain 


b) I assess making unnecessary digressions | 
from the subject during this lesson to be 

1234567 ia rather certain 

very completely -> 

3 . . ^ b very uncertain 
important unimportant 


c) I assess making unnecessary digression from i 
the sxibject during this lesson to be 

1234567 |a rather certain 

very completely ! , 

,. / . ,. } . • b very uncertain 
distressing undistressrng i * 


VL The v/ay in which I put questions { The ASSESSMENT is 


71 a) During this lesson I put rhetorical questions > 
(needing no answer) i 

12 3 4 5 6 7 J a rather certain 

never all the time ! . 

j b very uncertain 


b) I assess putting rhetorical questions during s 
this lesson to be ! 

1234567 [a rather certain 

very cc npletely ' , . . 
.. / . , r } , ' b very uncertain 
distressing undistr easing » 



VI. The way in which I put questions 


The ASSESSMENT is 


72 


a) 


During this lesson I put "fill-in" questions 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






never all the time 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess putting "fill-in" questions during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


b 


very uncertain 


73 


a) 


During this lesson I put inapposite questions, 
because I did not know how to go on 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a. 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess putting inapposite questions as 
being for the students 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


74 


a) 


During this lesson I put imprecise (ambiguous) 
questions 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess putting imprecise (ambiguous) 
questions during this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






completely very 
undistressing distressing 


b 


very uncertain 


75 


a) 


During this lesson I put difficult questions 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


a 


rather certain 






all the time never 


b 


very uncertain 




b) 


I assess putting difficult questions during 
this lesson to be 










12 3 4 5 6 7 


| a 


rather certain 






very completely 
important unimportant 


i b 


very uncertain 



VII. Noise and disturbance from outside The ASSESSMENT is 


76 a) During 'this lesson there is noise and ! 
disturbance from outside J 

.123456? >a rather certain 

all the time never i , • . . 

i b very uncertain 

l 1 


b) I assess the occurrence of noise and disturbance | 
from outside during this lesson to be ' 

1234567 ia rather certain 

very completely ! . , . 
,. ' . ,.*\ 7 . b very uncertain 

distressing undistressing ' 


VIII. The students' reactions to the subject ! The ASSESSMENT is 


77 a) During this lesson the students' reactions to J 
the subject being taught is ] 

1234567 ia rather certain 

very positive very negative ■ . . . 
7 r 7 6 , b very uncertain 


b) I assess the fact that the students react as I 

have stated in 77 a to be ■ 

* 1234567 ! a rather certain 

very completely ! , , 
' . ^ *. I o very uncertain 

important unimportant ' 


78 a) During this lesson the students occupy them- i 
selves with things unconnected with the teaching \ 

1234567 a rather certain 

never all the time ; , „„_„ ,,.„.,_,.♦._ «„ 

t d very uncertain 


b) I assess the fact that the students occupy them- [ 
selves with things unconnected with the teaching j 
to be • 

1234567 i a rather certain 

very completely , 
,. / . ,.*_. 7 . b very uncertain 

distressing undistressing ' 


IX. The effect of the studio situation on ! The ASSESSMENT is 
the students ! 


79 a) During this lesson the TV studio influences J 
the students ■ 

1234567 i a rather certain 

to a very to a very , 

' ,.^, ; b very uncertain 
great extent little extent J 


b) I assess the fact that the TV studio influences ■ 
the students during this lesson as being \ 

1234567 J a rather certain 

completely very ' , . . 

,. . . .. } i b very uncertain 
undistressing distressing i 



7. 2 Appendix 2.. 



Assessments of the reliability of perception and 
evaluation of the student teachers and educational 
experts. 



Appendix 2: 1 



The student teachers' self-assessment 



Table 1. The reliability of the summation variable: alfa-coefficient (aA 

the average values for the communality (h ) and multiple correla- 

_2 
tion (r ) and the homogeneity (r ), perception (a .). 

S 1 



Variable 


a 




u-2 




-2 




C 


h 


r 


r 


domain 


U l 


u 2 


V U 2 


s 


V U 2 


1 Ego-ego 


.72 


.79 


.46 


.97 


.58 


2 Ego-pupil 


.70 


.58 


.47 


.97 


.59 


3 Ego-NPO 


.33 


.35 


.50 


.95 


.63 


4 Pupil- ego 


.57 


.64 


.49 


.94 


.60 


5 Pupil -pupil 


.00 


. 31 


.61 


.90 


.70 


6 Pupil -NPO 


.64 


.53 


.58 


.89 


.67 



u.: lesson 1 
u~: lesson 2 



Table 2. The reliability of the summation variable: alfa-coefficient (a _,) 

-2 

the average values for the communality (h ) and multiple correla' 

-2 
tion (r ) and the homogeneity (r ), evaluation (a~). 

S £* 



u : lesson 1 
u_: lesson 2 



Variable 


a 




*r2 




-2 




C 




h 


r 


r 


domain 


U l 


u 2 


V U 2 


s 


V u 2 


1 Ego-ego 


.00 


. 12 


.45 


.96 


.56 


2, Ego -pupil 


. 16 


. 12 


.45 


.97 


.57 


3 Ego-NPO 


. 37 


.43 


.43 


.94 


.56 


4 Pupil -ego 


.74 


.80 


.58 


.96 


.69 


5 Pupil -pupil 


.00 


.00 


.54 


.89 


.66 


6 Pupil -NPO 


. 32 


.24 


.38 


.82 


. 53 



Appendix 2:2 



The educational experts' average assessment 



Table 3. Thr reliability of the sumrr \tion variable: alf -coefficient (a ), 
the homogeneity (r ? ) and the mean reliability, based on r_ , 
perception (a.). 



Variable 


a 


C 


r 
s 


*2l 


domain 


ml 


ml 2 






1 Ego-ego 


,73 


.73 


.94 


.44 


2 Ego-pupil 


.66 


.57 


.95 


.44 


3 Ego-NPO 


. 32 


. 39 


.90 


.43 


4 Pupil -ego 


.20 


.52 


.76 


.24 


5 Pupil -pupil 


.00 


.08 


.91 


.74 


6 Pupil -NPO 


.83 


.79 


.82 


.54 



The righthand column of the table has been used for 



reporting r. 



ii 



ml: micro-lesson 



Table 4. The reliability of the summation variable: alfa-coefficient (a ), 
the homogeneity (r ) and the mean reliability, based on r-., 
evaluation (a^j. 



Variable 


a 




r 


r-> a 






C 


s 


21 


domain 


ml i 


ml 2 






1 Ego-ego 


. 05 


. 19 


.92 


. 37 


2 Ego-pupil 


.24 


.03 


.92 


.33 


3 Ego-NPO 


. 19 


.04 


.80 


.26 


4 Pupil -ego 


. 31 


. 19 


.77 


.25 


5 Pupil -pupil 


.00 


. 11 


.56 


.24 


6 Pupil -NPO 


.21 


.04 


.67 


. 34 



The righthand column of the table has been used for 
reporting r. 



ii 



ml: micro-lesson 



Appendix 2:3 



Table 5. Summary of the number of reliable/unreliable i ems for the 
variable domains i-6. 



Variable 


total 


perception (a ) 


evaluation 


(* 2 ) 


domain 


number 


+ 


4- 


- 


i Ego-ego 

2 Ego -pupil 

3 Ego-NPO 

4 Pupil- ego 

5 Pupil -pupil 

6 Pupil -NPO 

Total 


20 
24 
12 

10 
4 
4 

74 


17 3 

20 4 

9 3 

10 

4 

4 

64 10 


14 

21 

10 

8 

3 

3 


6 
3 
2 
2 
1 
1 


59 


15 



+ : reliable items 
- : unreliable items 



7. 3 Appendix 3. 



Self-assessments and assesments by educational 
experts. 

Mean values and standard deviations for the variables 
included in the assessment and evaluation schedule 
F III. 






Appendix 3: 1 



Ken 

nr 


, CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Less on 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation . 




EGO-EGO 












i 


During this lesson I assess my- 
self as being 
(7) very relaxed 
(1) very tense 


4.00 1.52 


4.56 1.67 


4.14 .81 


4.25 


.83 


2 


During this lesson I assess my 
manner as being 
(7) very assured 
( 1) very unassured 


4.00 1.45 


4.51 1.37 


4. 14 . 98 


4.28 


.85 


3 


I assess my patience with the 

students during this lesson as 

being 

(7) very great 

(1) very little 


6.00 1.04 


6.01 .98 


4.84 .57 


4.79 


.66 


4 


I assess my sense of humor 
during this lesson as being 
(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


4.50 1.41 


4.80 1.38 


4. 07 . 66 


4.20 


.60 


5 


'I assess my voice during this 
lesson as being 
(7) very varied 
( 1) very monotonous 


3.67 1.63 


4.20 1.33 


3.91 .84 


3.96 


.78 


6 


I assess that during this lesson 

I speak 

(7) very distinctly 

(1) very indistinctly 


4.63 1.35 


5.05 1.31 


4.68 .57 


4.66 


.53 


7 


During this lesson I speak to 
the students 
(7) very loudly 
(1) very quietly 


4.48 1.02 


4.57 1.16 


4.52 .57 


4. 58 


.63 


8 


I assess my movements during 
this lesson as being 
(7) very fast 
( l) very slow 


3.64 1.23 


3.97 1.01 


3.70 0.53 


3.82 


.46 


9 


During this lesson i move 

about 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


3.97 1.56 


2.91 1.27 


4.50 1.18 


4. 16 


.89 


10 


During this lesson my posture 

is 

(7) very good 

( 1) very bad 














4.00 1.40 


4.50 1.48 


4.69 .63 


4. 91 


.50 


11 


During this lesson I have nervous 

tics, twitches etc. 

(7) on no occasion 

(i) on many occasions 


6.54 1.14 


6.65 .78 


7.00 .00 


6.9-9 


.05 


12 


During this lesson I gesti- 
culate 

(7) very little 
( 1) very much 


4.70 1.60 


4.66 1.48 


5.56 .86 


5. 46 


.82 


13 


During this lesson I 

fiddle with something 

(e.g. my ring, my 

glasses 

etc. ) 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


5.32 1.66 


5.27 1.76 


5.49 1.43 


5.39 


1. 31 


14 


During this lesson I assess my 
knowledge of facts as being 
(7) very good 
( 1) very deficient 


5.02 1.41 


5.48 1.15 


4.74 .64 


5.00 


.60 


15 


During this lesson I use stereo- 
typed expressions/frequently 
repeated but unnecessary ex- 
pressions (e. g. "Shall we. . . " 
"or. . .or. . . ")/ 
(7) never 
( 1) all the time 


4.11 1.54 


4.65 1.50 


5.89 .83 


6. 02 


.87 



Appendix 3:2 



Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Asses 


sment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


L 
Mean 


esson 1 

Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


16 


During this lesson I use in- 
complete sentences 
(7) never 
(l) all the time 


4.49 1.44 


4.59 1.52 


6.31 


.46 


6.29 


. 47 


17 


During this lesson I use ex- 
pressions that are linguistically 
incorrect 
(7) never 
( 1) all the time 


4.79 1.35 


5.04 1.20 


6.45 


.61 


6.52 


63 


18 


During this lesson I speak 
(7) without dialect 
(l) with a very noticeable 
dialect 


3.44 1.76 


3.79 1.70 


3.55 


.66 


3. 58 


.68 


19 


During this lesson I use difficult 

words without explaining them 

(e. g. technical terms, specific 

expressions etc.) 

(7) never 

(l) all the time 


5.86 1.37 


6.15 1.04 


6.67 


.43 


6.64 


.51 


20 


During this lesson it occurs that 

I suffer black outs, i. e. do not 

really know how to continue or 

what to say. 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


4.35 1.70 


5.04 1.50 


6.02 


1.00 


6.26 


.78 


21 


During this lesson I assess my 
handwriting on the blackboard to be 
(7) very easy to read 
(1) very difficult to read 


5.17 1.37 


5.03 1.58 


4.59 


.89 


4.81 


.88 


22 


During this lesson I put rhetorical 

questions (needing no 

answer) 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 

EGO -PUPIL 


6.05 1.14 


6.15 1.13 


6.38 


.71 


6.49 


.56 


23 


During this lesson I explain and 
describe things for the students 
(7) very well 
( 1) very badly 


4.19 1.30 


4.49 1.31 


4.57 


. 78 


4.64 


.76 


24 


I assess that during this lesson 
I control the students 
(7) very loosely 
( 1) very rigidly 


4.47 1.37 


4.39 1.28 


3.60 


. 70 


3.61 


.80 


25 


During this lesson I help 
the students 
(7) all the time 
( 1) never 


3.64 1.39 


3.44 1.25 


5.65 


.80 


5.68 


.79 


26 


During this lesson I nod at 
the student who is to 
















answer 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


4.28 1.95 


4.50 1.95 


5.36 


1. 14 


5.46 


1. 14 


27 


During this lesson I point 
at the student who is to 
















answer 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


5.05 1.99 


5.55 1.83 


5.61 


1.52 


5.84 


1. 33 


28 


During this lesson I say 
mm, good, fine or I nod in 
confirmation of the student's 
















answer 

(7) all the time 

( 1) never 


5.48 1.42 


5.52 1.39 


6.65 


.44 


6.61 


. 38 


29 


During this lesson I speak 
to the students whitout look- 
ing at them 
(7) never 
( l) all the time 


5.73 1.47 


5.99 1.01 


6.20 


.59 


6. 11 


.72 



Appendix 3:3 



Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by expe 


rts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


30 


During this lesson I address 
myself to the class as a whole 
when I speak 
(7) all the time 
( 1) never 


2.07 1.06 


2.00 .87 


1.72 .42 


1.80 


.44 


31 


During this lesson I interrupt 

the students 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


5.97 1.06 


5.80 1.14 


6.62 .57 


6.47 


.76 


32 


I assess my ability to maintain 
my position in relation to the 
students, i. e. not in every 
respect to feel and act in the 
same way as the students, 
to be 

(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


4.25 1.34 


3.93 1.28 


3.48 .54 


3. 65 


.68 


33 


During this lesson the time 
I allow for the students 
to answer is 
(7) too short 
( 1) too long 


4. 27 . 95 


4.07 .90 


3.92 .40 


3. 93 


. 37 


34 


During this lesson I favor 

some students 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


4.17 1.75 


4.49 1.71 


6.78 .44 


6.81 


. 37 


35 


During this lesson I get 
the students to work (i. e. 
not only group-work) 
(7) very dependently 
(l) very independently 


4.20 1.40 


4.40 1.34 


4.31 .81 


4.45 


.86 


36 


During this lesson I direct 
my attention mostly towards 
(7) passive students 
( 1) active students 


2.33 1.17 


3.20 1.32 


2.20 .52 


2. 32 


.51 


37 


During this lesson I pay 
attention to the students 
acting passively 
(7) very often 
( 1) very seldom 


3.01 1.68 


4.17 1.57 


2.03 .83 


2.38 


.82 


38 


During this lesson my contact 
with the students is 
(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


5.15 1.41 


5.63 1.11 


4.64 1.00 


4. 59 


1. 10 


39 


During this lesson the class 

is restless 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


5.16 1.81 


4.26 1.87 


5.80 1.30 


5. 24 


1.63 


40 


During this lesson the students 

speak at the same time 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


5.88 1.21 


6. 16 1. 12 


4.83 .80 


5. 20 


. 74 


41 


I assess the students' ability 
to concentrate during this 
lesson as being 
(7) very good 
(1) very bad 


5.28 1.49 


4.95 1.74 


5.13 .66 


4.89 


.97 


42 


During this lesson the ability 
of the students to work 
independently is 
(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


4.42 1.26 


4.75 1.38 


4. 45 . 82 


4. 53 


.89 


43 


During this lesson the students 

draw conclusions that are 

most often 

(7) completely correct 

(1) completely incorrect 


5.61 1.15 


5.70 1.04 


5.44 .50 


5. 48 


. 55 


44 


Prior to this lesson I have estimat- 
ed the students' previous knowledge 
(7) very well 
{ 1) very badly 


4. 10 1.43 


4.69 1.17 


4.39 .76 


4.44 


.90 



Appendix 3:4 





Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 




Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 




45 


During this lesson I put 
"fill-in" questions 
(7) never 
(1) all the time 


5.78 1.61 


5.71 1.55 


6.57 .73 


6.64 


.69 




46 


During this lesson I put 
inapposite questions, because 
I did not know how to 


5.73 1.40 


6.07 1.11 


6.52 .70 


6. 73 


. 57 




go on 




(7) never 

( 1) all the time 




47 


During this lesson I put 

imprecise (ambiguous) 

questions 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 


5.43 1.27 


5.47 1.29 


6.16 .76 


6.38 


.56 




48 


During this lesson I put 

difficult questions 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


5.64 1.28 


5.54 1.18 


5.34 .77 


5.27 


.68 




49 


During this lesson the students 

occupy themselves with 

things unconnected with the 

teaching 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 

EGO -NON -PERSONAL OBJECTS 


2.36 1.32 


2.99 1.58 


1.95 1.00 


2.70 


1. 55 




50 


I assess my teaching during 
this lesson as being 
(7) very varied for the 

students 
(1) very monotonous for 

the students 


3.60 1.29 


4.10 1.33 


3.89 .88 


4.06 


.84 




51 


I assess that during this lesson 

the TV studio affects my way of 

teaching 

(7) to a very little extent 

(l) to a very great extent 


5.08 2.00 


5.34 1.83 


4.54 .91 


4.87 


.79 




52 


I assess my rough plan 

for this lesson 

to be 

(7) very good 

( 1) very bad 


4.83 1.43 


5.47 1.26 


4.63 .91 


4.89 


95 




53 


I assess my detailed plan for 
this lesson to be 
(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


3.81 1.62 


3.74 1.40 


3.65 .87 


3. 31 


. 75 




54 


During this lesson I make use 
of teaching aids 
(7) all the time 
( 1) never 


3.67 1.37 


2.84 1. 12 


3.58 .82 


3.44 


.69 




55 


During this lesson I make 
use of the blackboard 
(7) all the time 
( 1) never 


4.25 1.96 


3.00 1.44 


4.77 1.58 


3.91 


1.20 




56 


The lay-out of what I write on the 
blackboard during this lesson is 
(7) very good 
( 1) very bad 


4.08 1.61 


4.74 1.49 


4.03 .71 


4.33 


.88 




57 


I assess my presentation of the 

subject during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very clear 

( 1) very unclear 


4.77 1.35 


5.00 1.30 


4.53 .80 


4.70 


.81 




58 


During this lesson my teaching 
















(7) extremely full of facts 

(l) extremely deficient in facts 


5.30 1.00 


5.29 1.18 


4.50 .76 


4.86 


'.64 



Appendix 3:5 



Item 



CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 



Self-assessment (student teachers) 



Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Assessment by experts (expert 1 and 2) 



Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 






64 



66 



70 



72 



During this lesson I assess my 
way of associating to the students 
previous knowledge to be 
(7) very good 
(l) very bad 

During this lesson I make 

unnecessary digressions from 

the subject 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 

During this lesson there is 

noise and disturbance from 

outside 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 

PUPIL-EGO 

During this lesson the students 

make negative comments about 

me (e.g. the bitch, she's nuts 

etc. ) 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 

comment on my manner 

(7) never 

( 1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 
comment on the way I am dressed 
(7) never 
(1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 
follow my instructions 
(7) all the time 
( i) never 

During this lesson the students 

mimic me 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 

make faces at me 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 

contradict me 

(7) never 

(l) all the time 

During this lesson the students 
ask me questions on the subject 
being taught 
(7) all the time 
(l) never 

During this lesson the students 

ask questions outside the subject 

area I am teaching at that 

moment 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 

During this lesson the students 
answer questions on the subject 
differently than I had in- 
tended 
(7) never 
( 1) all the time 

PUPIL-PUPIL 

During this lesson the students 

speak at the same time 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 



3.90 1.49 



5.86 1.12 



6.27 1.20 



6.86 .49 



6.57 .89 



6.66 .95 



6. 10 1. 07 



6.1 



.69 



72 .66 



6.34 1.05 



3.82 1.89 



6.38 1.12 



5.35 1.26 



5.38 1.67 



4.23 1.29 



6.03 1.02 



6.52 1.08 



6.77 .67 



6.66 .79 



6.61 1.08 



5.85 1.14 



6.76 .61 



6. 67 . 93 



6.05 1.23 



4. 17 1. 65 



6.29 



5.03 1.36 



5.07 1.67 



4.36 



6.45 .75 



6.83 .48 



i. 99 .05 



6.97 .15 



6.94 .37 



5.61 .68 



6.' 



11 



6.98 .11 



6.01 .89 



2. 73 



6.78 .40 



5.83 .46 



6. 15 1.20 



4.47 .89 



6. 65 . 52 



6. 96 . 19 



6. 98 . 09 



6.95 .19 



7. 00 . 00 



5.43 .97 



6.95 .24 



6. 96 . 17 



5.76 .96 



2.75 .75 



6.70 .51 



5.67 .59 



5.62 1.68 



Appendix 3:6 



Item 

;:r 


CONTENTS 
perception (a.) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


73 


During this lesson the students 

talk to each other about things 

outside the subject 

(7) never 

(1) all the time 


5.51 1.42 


5.04 1.53 


6.32 .94 


6.07 


1. 14 


74 


During this lesson the students 

distract each other 

(7) never 

(l) all the time 


6.01 1.26 


5.48 1.49 


6.29 .94 


5.76 


1. 30 


75 


During this lesson the students 
discuss together the subject 
being taught 
(7) all the time 
(l) never 

PUPIL-NON-PERSONAL OBJECTS 


3.04 1.59 


3.47 1.51 


2. 14 1. 18 


2. 61 


1. 37 


76 


During this lesson I assess 
the students' interest in the 
subject to be 
(7) very great 
(1) very little 


5.66 1.27 


5.49 1.32 


4.86 .75 


4.82 


.83 


77 


During this lesson I present the 
material in such a way that the 
students can associate to earlier 
experiences and knowledge 
(7) very well 
(1) very badly 


4.22 1.58 


4.32 1.33 


4.55 .91 


4.64 


.97 


78 


During this lesson the students' 

reactions to the subject being 

taught is 

(7) very positive 

(1) very negative 


5.79 1.14 


5.58 1.30 


4.89 .71 


4.89 


.88 


79 


During this lesson the TV studio 
influences the students 
(7) to a very little extent 
( 1) to a very great extent 


5.40 1.61 


5.73 1.55 


4.88 .83 


5.28 


. 74 



1 



Appendix 3:7 



Item 



CONTENTS 
evaluation (a->) 



Self-assessment {student teachers) 



Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Assessment by experts (expert 1 and 2) 



Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



EGO-EGO 

This tension affects my 
eaching during this 
esson 

7) very positively 
1) very negatively 

assess the need to be assured 
during this lesson to be 
7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 

assess having patience 
with the students during 
his lesson to be 
7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 

assess having a sense of 
humor during this lesson 
:o be 

7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 

assess my ability to vary my 
voice during this lesson 
o be 

7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 

assess speaking distinctly 
during this lesson to be 
7) very important 
l) completely unimportant 

assess the pitch of my voice 
during this lesson to be 
7) very important 
l) completely unimportant 

assess the speed of my move- 
ments during this lesson as being 
7) too fast 
1) too slow 

assess moving about during 
his lesson to be 
7) very important 
l) completely unimportant 

assess my posture during 
his lesson to be 
7) very important 
l) completely unimporta'nt 

assess having nervous tics 
and twitches during this lesson 
o be 

7) very distressing 
l) completely undistressing 

assess gesticulating during 
his lesson to be 
7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 

assess that fiddling with some- 
thing during this lesson is 
7) completely undistressing 

for the students 
1) very distressing for the 
students 

assess having factual know- 
edge during this lesson to be 
7) very important 
1) completely unimportant 



3.66 1.37 



5.56 1.44 



2.55 1.73 



5.05 1.69 



5.65 1.49 



6.23 1.48 



5.34 1.73 



3.88 .98 



4.93 1.45 



4.14 1.70 



5.26 1.85 



4. 17 1. 61 



2.72 1.46 



6.54 .72 



3.73 1.37 



5.99 1.08 



2.10 1.29 



5.07 1.71 



5.69 1.15 



6.35 1.05 



5.29 1.72 



3.79 -87 



4.92 1.40 



4.26 1.77 



5.06 1.93 



3.86 1.49 



3.39 1.91 



S.48 .88 



4.15 .76 



5.70 .42 



2.87 .52 



4.69 -41 



5.29 .31 



5.34 ,46 



5.14 .54 



3.80 .39 



4.01 .67 



4.72 .36 



5.21 .31 



3.53 .77 



5.68 .44 



5.67 .47 



4.27 .71 



5.74 .39 



3.01 .67 



4.60 .43 



5.24 .26 



5.32 .37 



5. 12 .48 



3.90 .28 



3.84 .61 



4.78 .35 



5.20 .28 



3.30 .76 



5.69 .51 



5.73 .31 



Appendix 3:8 



Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
evaluation (a-,) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by expe 


rts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


15 


I assess the use of stereotyped 

expressions (frequently repeated 

but unnecessary expressions) 

to be 

(7) very distressing 

(l) completely undistressing 


2.44 1.40 


3.05 1.70 


5. 48 . 78 


5.52 


.82 


16 


I assess my use of incomplete 
sentences during this lesson 
to be 

(7) completely undistressing 
( 1) very distressing 


2.98 1.61 


3.26 1.93 


5.67 .43 


5.62 


. 56 


17 


I assess my use of linguistic- 
ally incorrect expressions 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 
( 1) very distressing 


3.13 1.66 


3.27 1.81 


4.53 .64 


4. 51 


. 55 


18 


I assess that for myself my 
speaking dialect during this 
lesson is 

(7) completely undistressing 
(1) very distressing 


5.27 1.82 


5.26 2.04 


5.95 .72 


5.92 


.74 


19 


I assess that for the students 
the use of difficult words (with- 
out explanation) during this 
lesson is 

(7) completely meaningless 
( 1) very instructive 


6.63 .91 


6.75 63 


6.44 .22 


6.43 


. 19 


20 


I assess that suffering black- 
outs during this lesson is 
(7) completely undistressing 
for me 














(1) very distressing 
for me 


2.10 1.24 


2.80 1.77 


4.00 .68 


4.07 


. 74 


21 


I assess the clarity of my hand- 
writing during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 
( 1) completely unimportant 


5.19 1.50 


5.48 1.49 


5.08 .63 


5. 25 


.39 


22 


I assess putting rhetorical 

questions during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very distressing 

(l) completely undistressing 

EGO-PUPIL 


4.21 1.64 


3.95 1.77 


2.67 .63 


2.68 


.64 


23 


I assess explaining and describ- 
ing things for the students 
during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 
(1) completely unimportant 


6.27 1.35 


6.52 .87 


5.68 .44 


5.65 


. 42 


24 


I assess the need to control the stu- 
dents during this lesson as being 
(7) very important 
( 1) completely unimportant 


4.14 1.30 


4.27 1.45 


4.58 .56 


4.75 


.60 


25 


I assess the need to give the 

students a lot of help during 

this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 


4.00 1.60 


4. 13 1.50 


3.97 .55 


3.90 


.58 


26 


I assess nodding at the student 

who is to answer during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very impersonal 

(1) very personal 


2.68 1.36 


2.72 1.48 


3.23 .45 


3.24 


.36 


27 


I assess pointing at the student 

who is to answer during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very impersonal 

( 1) very personal 


2.22 1.35 


2.04 1.23 


2.97 .49 


2.94 


.42 



Appendix 3:9 



Item 



CONTENTS 
evaluation (a-, 



Self-assessment (student teachers) 



Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Assessment by experts (expert 1 and 2) 



Less on 1 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 

deviation 



28 



29 



30 



32 



33 



34 



36 



37 



38 



40 



I assess the use of such 

confirmation during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(1) completely unimportant 

I assess looking at the students 

when I speak to them during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(1) completely unimportant 

I assess addressing myself to 

the class as a whole when i speak 

during this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 

I assess interrupting the students 

during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very wise 

(l) very foolish 

I assess maintaining one's position 

in relation to the students, i. e. not 

in every respect feeling and acting 

in the same way as the students, 

to be 

(7) very positive 

(1) very negative 

I assess the amount of time 
allowed for the students to an- 
swer to be 
(7) very important 
(l) completely unimportant 

I assess favoring some 

students during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very negative 

( 1) very positive 

I assess independent work 

by the students during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 

I assess the division of 

attention between students 

acting actively or passively 

during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 

I assess paying attention to 
the students acting passively 
during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 
(l) completely unimportant 

I assess making contact with 

the students during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 

I assess the fact that the class 

is restless during this lesson 

to be 

(7) very distressing 

(1) completely undistressing 

I assess the fact that the students 

speak at the same time 

to be 

(7) completely undistressing 

(1) very distressing 



2. 15 



6.64 



6. 08 



2. 45 



4. 54 



5. 13 



1.83 



4. 16 



6.32 



6.09 



6. 54 



4. 34 



5. 10 



1.45 



.84 



1.42 



1.50 



1.47 



1. 39 



1.06 



1.85 



1.25 



1.06 



.94 



1.81 



1.65 



2. 14 



6. 47 



6.27 



2. 33 



4. 16 



5. 30 



1. 95 



4.46 



6.47 



6. 39 



6. 74 



4.44 



4. 50 



1.32 



.96 



.93 



1.35 



1.45 



1. 39 



1.05 



1.85 



1.26 



.92 



. 55 



1.81 



1.72 



4.48 



5.70 



5.47 



3. 10 



3.70 



5. 60 



.92 



.43 



.48 



.84 



.49 



47 



2.93 .24 



6.26 .27 



5.78 .40 



3.11 1.00 



4.86 .90 



4.52 



5.74 



5.54 



3. 42 



3.63 



5. 65 



.90 



. 36 



1. 15 



. 58 



. 36 



2.94 .26 



5.58 .46 5.55 .40 



6.21 .32 



5.94 . 34 5.96 . 17 



5.77 .37 



3.32 1.29 



5.04 .97 



Appendix 3: 10 



Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
evaluation (a~) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


41 


I assess the fact that the 
students are concentrated 
during my lesson to be 
(7) very important 
(1) completely unimportant 


6.09 .96 


6.15 1.09 


5.70 .37 


5.76 


. 37 


42 


I assess the ability of the 

students to work independently 

during this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(1) completely unimportant 


4.24 1.70 


4.72 1.76 


5.67 .37 


5.67 


. 34 


43 


I assess the ability of the 
students to draw conclusions 
during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 
(1) completely unimportant 


5.71 1.49 


5.78 1.35 


5.42 .41 


5. 49 


. 34 


44 


I assess estimation of the 

students' previous knowledge 

before the lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(i) completely unimportant 


5.90 1.16" 


6.03 1.14 


5.77 .34 


5. 74 


. 35 


45 


I assess putting "fill-in" questions 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely unimportant 
(l) very important 


4.79 1.51 


4.90 1.50 


5.60 .46 


5. 45 


46 


46 


I assess putting inapposite 

questions as being for the 

students 

(7) completely undistres sing 

(l) very distressing 


4.92 1.68 


4.89 1.70 


3.20 .60 


3. 31 


.55 


47 


I assess putting imprecise 

(ambiguous) questions during 

this lesson to be 

(7) very distressing 

(1) completely undistressing 


5.56 1.39 


5.34 1.49 


3.85 .84 


3.94 


.79 


48 


I assess putting difficult questions 

during this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(1) completely unimportant 


4.83 1.57 


5.03 1.57 


3.27 .51 


3.04 


.49 


49 


I assess the fact that the 
students occupy themselves 
with things unconnected with 
the teaching to be 
(7) completely undistressing 
( l) very distressing 

EGO-NON-PERSONAL OBJECTS 


3.08 1.61 


3.31 1.77 


4.98 .92 


4.70 


1. 33 


50 


I assess the need for the teach- 
ing to be varied for the students 
during this lesson 
to be 

(7) very important 
( 1). completely unimportant 


5. 13 1.88 


6.00 1.34 


5.58 .26 


5. 56 


.32 


51 


I assess that during this lesson 

the effect of the TV studio 

makes me 

(7) very assured 

(1) very unassured 


3.75 1.21 


3.77 .88 


3.74 .42 


3.85 


.36 


52 


I assess having a rough plan for 

this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 


6.71 .52 


6.68 .61 


6.13 .43 


6. 13 


.36 


53 


I assess having a detailed plan 

for this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 


3.98 1.75 


3.80 1.85 


4. 77 . 30 


4. 79 


.29 



Appendix 3:11 



Item 
nr 


CONTENTS 
evaluation (a ? ) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 1 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


Lesson 2 
Mean Standard 
deviation 


54 


During this lesson I make 
use of teaching aids 
(7) very suitable 
(l) very unsuitable 


5.48 1.19 


5.72 1.03 


5.16 .79 


5.31 


. 78 


55 
56 


I assess using the blackboard 

during this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 

I assess the lay-out of what I 

write on the blackboard during 

this lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(1) completely unimportant 


5.48 1.55 
5.34 1.63 


6.07 1.00 
5.39 1.69 


5.27 .47 
4.76 .80 


5.26 
5.05 


.42 

.66 


57 


I assess the way in which I 
present the subject to be 
(7) very important 
(1) completely unimportant 


6.39 .98 


6.55 .68 


6.24 .25 


6.25 


.27 


58 


I assess having plenty of facts 

in my teaching during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very important 

(l) completely unimportant 


5.20 1.27 


5. 19 1. 31 


5.63 .55 


5. 75 


.46 


59 


I assess being able to associate 
to the students' previous know- 
ledge during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 
( 1) completely unimportant 


5.80 1.34 


5.89 1.30 


5.69 .43 


5.73 


.26 


60 


I assess making unnecessary 
digressions from the subject 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely unimportant 
( 1) very important 


4.67 1.60 


5.22 ,1.65 


5.54 .40 


5. 55 


. 36 


61 


I assess the occurrence of 
noice and disturbance from out- 
side during this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 
(l) very distressing 

PUPIL-EGO 


4.20 1.94 


4.44 1.89 


4. 49 . 30 


4.52 


. 16 


62 


I assess the fact that the students 
make negative comments about 
me during the lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 
(1) very distressing 


2.71 1.95 


3. 17 2.09 


3.69 .51 


3.61 


. 52 


63 


I assess the fact that the students 
make comments on my manner 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 
(1) very distressing 


3.40 1.91 


3.60 2.03 


3.67 .65 


3. 60 


. 58 


64 


I assess the fact that the students 

comment on the way I am dressed 

to be 

(7) completely undistressing 

( 1) very distressing 


4.49 2.09 


4. 58 2. 11 


5.50 .31 


5.49 


. 32 


C5 


I assess the students' following 

my instructions during this 

lesson to be 

(7) very important 

( 1) completely unimportant 


2.11 1.03 


1.96 .94 


3.02 .45 


2.89 


. 44 


66 


I assess the fact that the students 
mimic me during this lesson 
to be 

(7) completely undistressing 
( 1) very distressing 


3.09 1.98 


3.54 2.13 


4.04 .26 


4.02 


.23 

















Appendix 3: 12 



1 Item 


CONTENTS 
evaluation (a ? ) 


Self-assessment (student teachers) 


Assessment by experts (expert 


1 and 2) 


Lesson 1 


Lesson 2 


Lesson 1 


Lesson 2 






Mean Standard 


Mean Standard 


Mean Standard 


Mean 


Standard 






deviation 


deviation 


deviation 




deviation 


67 


I assess the fact that the 
students make faces at me 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 














(l) very distressing 


3.07 1.99 


3.42 2.05 


3. 98 . 19 


3.99 


. 23 


68 


I assess the fact that the 
students contradict me during 
this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 














(1) very distressing 


4.90 1.67 


4.96 1.65 


5.14 .58 


4. 97 


. 72 


69 


I assess the fact that the 

students ask me questions on 

the subject being taught 

to be 

(7) very important 














(l) completely unimportant 


6.39 .83 


6.40 1.01 


5.21 .43 


5. 01 


. 45 


70 


I assess the fact that the 
students ask questions outside 
the subject to be 
(7) completely unimportant 














(1) very important 


4.57 1.43 


5.08 1.53 


5. 49 . 34 


5. 49 


. 30 


71 


I assess the fact that the students 
answer questions on the subject 
differently than I had intended 
during this lesson to be 
(7) completely undistressing 














( l) very distressing 


2.39 1.39 


2.52 1.51 


2.53 .56 


2. 71 


.79 




PUPIL-PUPIL 












72 


I assess the fact that the 
students speak at the same time 
to be 
(7) completely undistressing 














(1) very distressing 


3.96 1.83 


3.91 1.91 


4.82 .87 


4.62 


. 17 


73 


I assess the fact that the students 

talk to each other about things 

outside the subject during 

this lesson to be 

(7) completely undistressing 














(1) very distressing 


4.44 1.68 


4.55 1.69 


3.44 .64 


3. 70 


.83 


74 


I assess the fact that the 
students distract each other 
during this lesson as being 
(7) completely undistressing 


- 












(l) very distressing 


3.32 1.86 


3.36 1.77 


4.76 .79 


4. 57 


1. 00 


75 


I assess the fact that the* 
students discuss together 
the subject being treated 
as being 
(7) very important 














( 1) completely unimportant 


4.91 1.59 


4.94 1.54 


4. 48 . 48 


4. 32 


. 57 




PUPIL-NON-PERSONAL OBJECTS 












76 


I assess the amount of interest 
in the subject shown by the 
students during this lesson to be 
(7) very important 














(1) completely unimportant 


6.53 .83 


6.48 .91 


5.74 .45 


5.74 


. 38 


77 


I assess presenting the material 
in such a way that the students 
can associate to earlier experien- 
ces and knowledge during this 
lesson to be 
(7) very important 














(1) completely unimportant 


6.16 1.15 


6.19 1.07 


5.86 .35 


5.83 


.31 


78 


I assess the fact that the students 
react as I have stated in 77 a to be 
(7) very important 














(l) completely unimportant 


6.46 .94 


6.18 1.31 


5.43 .65 


5. 51 


.61 


79 


I assess the fact that the TV 
studio influences the students 
during this lesson as being 
(7) completely undistressing 














( 1) very distressing 


3.41 1.76 


3.56 1.76 


3.16 .81 


2.93 


.79 



7. 4 Appendix 4. 



Canonical correlations and coefficients for the 
variable domains 1-6. 



Appendix 4: 1 



Table 1. Canonical correlation and coefficients. Variable domain i: 
Ego-ego relation, perception (a.) micro-lesson 1, 







R = 


.81 


Item no. 


Contents 


c 
b l 


X l 


i 


Emotional state 


-. 13 


.31 


2 


Manner 


.32 


-.22 


3 


Patience with pupils 


. 13 


-. 10 


4 


Sense of humor 


.39 


-.08 


5 


Voice variation 


-.48 


-.08 


6 


Clarity of speech 


-. 16 


-. 04 


7 


Vocal pitch 


.46 


-.02 


10 


Posture 


. 13 


-.03 


• • 

12 


Use of gestures 


.49 


.47 


13 


Fiddling with objects (rings etc.) 


-. 13 


-.40 


14 


Factual knowledge 


.29 


-.07 


15 


Use of stereotype expressions 


.57 


.22 


16 


Use of incomplete sentences 


-. 18 


-. 17 


17 


Use of grammatically in- 








correct expressions 


-.16 


. 14 


18 


Dialectal accent 


-.44 


-.21 


19 


Use of difficult concepts 








without explanations 


.01 


.42 


20 


Mental blocks (black outs) 


-.81 


-.22 


21 


Legibility of handwriting 








on blackboard 


. 10 


-.24 


22 


U^e of rhetorical questions 


.02 


.26 



R 



T 



Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 

Canonical variable, referring to educational experts 
Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



Appendix 4:2 



Table 2. Canonical correlation and coefficients. Variable domain 1: 
Ego-ego relation, perception (a.) micro-lesson 2. 







R = 


.80 


Item no. 


C ontents 


c 
b l 


V 


i 


Emotional state 


-.23 


-. 16 


2 


Manner 


.82 


.28 


3 


Patience with pupils 


.24 


.49 


4 


Sense of humor 


.26 


-.24 


5 


Voice variation 


-.21 


.20 


6 


Clarity of speech 


-. 16 


.20 


7 

• 


Vocal pitch 


-.41 


-.05 : 


ib 


Posture 


-.23 


.04 


12 


Use of gestures 


-. 16 


-.44 


13 


Fiddling with objects (rings etc.) 


-.45 


.06 


14 


Factual knowledge 


.69 


-. 12 


15 


Use of stereotype expressions 


.41 


.28 


16 


Use of incomplete sentences 


. 15 


. 14 


17 


Use of grammatically in- 








correct expressions 


-.65 


-.28 


18 


Dialectal accent 


-. 17 


.01 


19 


Use of difficult concepts 








without explanations 


-.23 


-.41 


20 


Mental blocks (black outs) 


-. 11 


-.53 


21 


Legibility of handwriting 








on blackboard 


-. 16 


-.23 


22 


Use of rhetorical questions 


-. 19 


. 19 



R : Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 
b.: Canonical variable, referring to educational experts 
1.: Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



Appendix 4:3 



Table 3. Canonical correlation and coefficients. "Variable domain: 1 
Ego-pupil relation, perception (a J micro-lesson 1. 




23 

• • 

25 
26 
27 

• * - 

29 

• m 

31 
32 



35 

* • 

37 
38 

39 

40 

41 
42 
43 
44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 



Explanations and descriptions 

Helping pupils 

Non-verbal contact (nodding) 

Non-verbal contact (pointing) 

Address 'without eye -contact 

Interruption of pupil's speech 
Ability to maintain own 
authority 



Getting the pupils to work 

Attention directed towards 
passive pupils 

Contact between student teacher 
and pupil 

Confusion in class 
Pupils' conversational 
discipline 

Pupils' concentration 
Independent work (pupils) 
Pupils' ability to infer 
Estimation c£ pupils' initial 
knowledge 

Questioning technique: fill-in 
questions 

Questioning technique: irrele- 
vant questions 

Questioning technique: imprecise 
questions 

Questioning technique: difficult 
questions 
Pupils' irrelevant occupations 



■.23 



-.34 



-. 11 



.39 



-.05 


.40 


-.32 


-.43 


-.47 


-.43 


-.04 


-. 10 


. 12 


.47 


-.07 


.15 



■.29 



.17 



.28 

.31 


-.16 
.33 


.44 
.16 
. 13 
.03 


-.22 
.58 

-. 11 
-.18 


.56 


.50 


.04 


-.10 


.09 


-. 18 


.20 


.04 


. 17 

.58 


,01 
. 12 



R : Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 
c 

b.: Canonical variable, referring to educational experts 

1.: Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



Appendix 4:4 



Table 4. Canonical correlations and coefficients. Variable domain 3: 
Ego-NPO relation, perception (a.) micro-lesson 1. 



Item 
no. 


C ontents 


R = 
c 

b l 


.87 • 
h 
.07 


R = 
c 

b 2 


.58 


50 


Assessment of own teaching 


.21 


-.87 


-.33 


51 


Degree of ITV studio's effect 










52 


on teaching 

General planning of the lesson 


-. 15 
.08 


.05 
.03 


.72 
-.51 


-.34 
-. 19 


53 


Detailed planning of the lesson 


. 10 


-. 10 


-.66 


-.06 


54 


Use of teaching aids 


.09 


.04 


-.23 


-.01 


55 


Use of blackboard 


1. 01 


1.00 


-. 19 


-. 16 


56 


Arrangement on blackboard 


.04 


-.03 


-.26 


.07 


57 


Presentation of subject 


.28 


.09 


.23 


.03 


58 


Communication of hard facts 










59 


in the teaching 

Linking up with pupils' initial 

knowledge 


-. 10 
.06 


-. 12 
.01 


-.40 
-.38 


.61 
-.69 


60 


Digressions in presentation 












of subject 


. 14 


.01 


-.04 


.31 



Table 5. Canonical correlations and coefficients. Variable domain 4: 
Pupil-ego relation, perception (a,) micro-lessons 1 and 2. 



Item 
no. 


C ontents 


ml, 

R = . 
c 


40 


ml 2 

R = . 
c 


34 






b l 


h 


b l 


h 


* * 

• • 

65 


Obeying student teacher's 










« • 


instructions 


. 12 


-. 15 


-.32 


-.72 


68 


Contradiction by pupils 


-. 02 


.44 


-.76 


-.44 


69 


Pupils ask questions 












concerning the subject 


1.00 


.80 


.79 


.09 


• « 

71 


Pupils give answers other 












than those intended 


-. 18 


.08 


-.84 


.37 



R : Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 

b.: Canonical variable, referring to a population 

1.: Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



Appendix 4:5 



Table 6, 'Canonical correlations and coefficients. Variaole domain 5: 
Pupil-pupil relation, perception (a.) micro-lessons 1 and 2. 







ml. 




ml 2 




Iiem 
no. 


C ontents 


R = . 
c 

b i 


51 


R = . 
c 

b l 


51 
h 


72 


Pupils interrupt each other 


-.28 


.81 


-.92 


-.86 


73 


Talk to -each other about things 












outside the subject 


.56 


-.22 


.59 


.26 


74 


Play together 


-.59 


. 12 


-.23 


-.00 


75 


Discuss the subject 


.58 


.66 


-.37 


-.48 



Table 7. Canonical correlation and coefficients. Variable domain 1: 
ego-ego relation, evaluation (a ? ) micro-lesson 1. 



Item 


Contents 


R = 
c 


-- .76 


no. 




.31 


l l 

. 16 


r 


Emotional state 


2 


Manner 


.00 


-. 19 


3 


Patience with pupils 


-.62 


.38 


4 


Sense of humor 


-.05 


-. 18 


5 


Voice variation 


.20 


.38 


6 


Clarity of speech 


-.05 


-. 18 


7 


Vocal pitch 


-. 30 


-.48 


10 


Posture 


. 15 


-.50 


« # 

12 


Use of gestures 


-.33 


.07 ; 


13 


Fiddling with objects (rings etc.) 


.31 


.16 


14 


Factual knowledge 


.44 


-.24 


15 


Use of stereotype expressions 


-.91 


.04 


16 


Use of incomplete sentences 


.60 


-.46 j 


17 


Use of grammatically in- 




1 




correct expressions 


.55 


-. 15 


18 


Dialectal accent 


.08 


-.02 


19 


Use of difficult concepts 








without explanations 


-.24 


.23 


20 


Mental blocks (black outs) 


.05 


.30 


21 


Legibility of handwriting 








on blackboard 


-. 11 


-.01 


22 


Use of rhetorical questions 


-.50 


. 15 



R : Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 

b * Canonical variable, referring to educational experts 

1 ,: Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



Appendix 4:6 

Table 8. Canonical correlation and coefficients. Variable domain 2: 
Ego-pupil relation, evaluation (a ? ) micro -less on 2. 



Item 


Contents 


R = 
c 


.81 


no. 




b l 


*1 


23 


Explanations and descriptions 


. 12 


.27 


* • 

25 


Helping pupils 


. 10 


-. 17 


26 


Non-verbal contact (needing) 


. 14 


-. 17 


27 


Non-verbal contact (pointing) 


.08 


-.39 


29 


Address without eye-contatc 


. 10 


-. 14 


• • 

31 


Interruption of pupil' s speech 


.27 


.51 


32 


Ability to maintain own 






• * 


authority 


.81 


-. 16 


» • 

35 


Getting the pupils to work 


-.06 


.08 


• • 

37 


Attention directed towards 








passive pupils 


.08 


.09 


38 


Contact between student teacher 








and pupil 


-.26 


. 10 


39 


Confusion in class 


.60 


.42 


40 


Pupils' conversational 








discipline 


-. 10 


.21 


41 


Pupils' concentration 


. 11 


-.03 


42 


Independent work (pupils) 


.50 


-.02 


43 


Pupils' ability to infer 


.21 


.07 


44 


Estimation of pupils' initial 








knov'edge 


-.29 


. 12 


45 


Questioning technique: fill-in 


> 






questions 


-. 15 


.08 


46 


Questioning technique: irrele- 








vant questions 


. 10 


-. 19 


47 


Questioning technique: imprecise 








questions 


-. 16 


-.09 


48 


Questioning technique: difficult 








questions 


-.01 


-.39 


49 


Pupils' irrelevant occupations 


-.27 


.07 



Table 9 . Canonical correlations and coefficients. Variable domain 6: 
Pupil-NPO relation, evaluation (a 2 ) micro-lesson 2. 



Item 

no. 



C ontents 



R = .45 



76 Pupils' interest 

77 Presentation of subject 

78 Pupils' reaction to the subject 

79 Effect of ITV studio on pupils 



.78 


.94 


.38 


.20 


.52 


. 16 


.03 


.25 



R : Canonical correlation coefficient in a population 

b^: Canonical variable, referring to educational experts 

lj: Canonical variable, referring to student teachers 



2 JP 

£B O 

3 S" 

O: 2_ 

w 2. 

<ti m 
q. a. 

CD c 

3 O 

a 

o' 

3 



"o m o 

[a! 

o o 3 

CQ 3 CD 
-- f» 3 
O — -f. 
0) 

-BO 

^3 Q. 
CD 
CO 
CD 

pa 



Abstract card 



Reference card 



Bierschenk, B. Self- confrontation via closed-circuit televi- 
sion in teacher training: Results, implications and re- 
commendations. Didakometry (MalmS, Sweden: School 
of Education), No. 37, 1972. 

An experimental study was carried out for the purpose of 
studying the effects on self-assessment of student teachers 

rVil A?» rM i 1 3 r , ?\ ediated self-confrontation processes via 
<^I V/VR and (2) dyadic confrontation processes in the 
form of traditional tutoring. The present report gives a 
brief description of the design, the results, and some 
implications of the analysis. 

Indexed 

1. Microteaching 

2. Self- confrontation 

3. Video tape record 



Bierschenk, B. Self- confrontation via closed-circuit televi- 
sion m teacher training: Results, implications and re- 
commendations. Didakometry (Malmtt, Sweden: School 
of Education), No. 37, 1972